Messages

286

EOS Bodies / Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)

« on: December 05, 2011, 11:05:04 AM »

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult...

While I cannot even pretend to have the technical knowledge of neuroanatomist, I guess I have a higher opinion of where science can go and a lower opinion of where it is.  Whether you're talking about the discovery of quasicrystals for which the discoverer was practially barred from scientific circles because it went against "the laws of physics" (but has since been awared the nobel prize) or the more assinine "truth" that the 4-minute mile is (was) physically impossible, science grows and evolves and changes as we continue to push the boundaries.

For example, what about metamaterials for lenses?  (Haha--now I'm just using fancy words that I don't even know the meaning of!    )

287

Landscape / Re: Some new works.

« on: December 02, 2011, 03:19:27 PM »

I love the first one!

The second and third ones I want to like, but they make me feel like I should have had a V8.  (For those of you who are unfamiliar, it's a vegetable drink who's advertising speaks about being "unbalanced" and shows people walking around tilted to the side.)  But iff that's the intent, then awesome!   

288

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]

« on: December 02, 2011, 03:14:52 PM »

And very often the places I want to shoot from are not very tripod friendly either.

If you can sit or stand where you are, and not fall/roll away, then you can use a tripod.

I can stand/sit on a 4" railing.  Never had much luck getting a tripod to work there.   

289

EOS Bodies / Re: This and That

« on: December 02, 2011, 02:52:47 PM »

Since 10,000 is plural, we'll use 20,000 for the short end.  Throw in a little inflation, we'll call a 5d3 $3000.  Most people buying one are likely to be buying at least 2 decent lenses for it, let's say at a mean of $1500 each.  So Canon is going to forgo $120 million in sales (exluding accessories AND all the future revenue associated with brand loyalty) to "see what happens".  I'm not buying it.

Are you suggesting that if Canon releases a 5DIII which incorporates the 18 MP sensor from the 1D X, with the ISO and DR improvements, that no one will buy it?  I'm not buying that.  Canon's not saying no 5DIII, they're saying no high-MP FF sensor (for now).

Whoa--nope not saying that at all!   

What I'm saying is that Canon is not going to wait until they've lost 10,000s of customers (per the quote) before they decide to come up with a high MP camera.  I was just using "5d3" as an example because we can give a rough reasonable price-point estimate on that.  Sorry for the confusion!

290

EOS Bodies / Re: This and That

« on: December 02, 2011, 02:19:02 PM »

...how many 10,000s of customers we might be losing...

Somehow I find that hard to believe. 

Since 10,000 is plural, we'll use 20,000 for the short end.  Throw in a little inflation, we'll call a 5d3 $3000.  Most people buying one are likely to be buying at least 2 decent lenses for it, let's say at a mean of $1500 each.  So Canon is going to forgo $120 million in sales (exluding accessories AND all the future revenue associated with brand loyalty) to "see what happens".  I'm not buying it.

I'm not saying the 5d3 specifically will be high MP, I'm just saying there's no way Canon can stay out of the high MP market (unless they convince Sony and Nikon to as well and thereby not lose the "10,000s of customers")

291

Canon General / Re: 15% Off at Canon Refurbished Store

« on: December 01, 2011, 05:17:00 PM »

Awesome--thanks for the heads up guys! 

Just snagged a 7d, but man, at that discount I'm pondering a 5d2 as well!

292

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]

« on: November 30, 2011, 02:57:15 PM »

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

293

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO

« on: November 28, 2011, 06:02:52 PM »

Well, it's a simple test to do yourself.

And yet another "why didn't I think of that??"   

I'll run some tests tonight and get back to you with results.

294

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Push vs. ISO

« on: November 28, 2011, 05:22:48 PM »

So here's a question, to which I'm sure the answer varies by body, but I'd still be interested in the answers:

Are you going to get more noise in an image by using a higher iso or by underexposing at a lower iso and then pushing it in post? 

Personally I use Lightroom, but I'm not sure whether software choice affects the answer, so maybe that's part of the question as well.

295

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How bad is the AF on 5DmkII really?

« on: November 25, 2011, 10:34:23 AM »

Thanks for everyones responses!

I guess my take-away is this: multiple people stated in essence: "I have both the 5D2 and the 7D and I use the 7D for sports."  Obviously for these people the quality of the AF on the 7D outweighs the better IQ of the 5D in a sports setting, and that is what I was asking.  Especially since the nature of what I'm doing is more dependant on keeper rate than getting that one "money shot", it sounds like the 7D is the way to go for me.   

296

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How bad is the AF on 5DmkII really?

« on: November 23, 2011, 05:21:04 PM »

Yep, my wife let's me use her 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 24-105mm f/4.0L, the 85mm f/1.8, etc, so I'm good on glass.

More primes will probably be better in this regard - it's worth thinking about.

How so?  Can you explain more?  (Not that I'll have any money left for lenses, but hope springs eternal!)   

297

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How bad is the AF on 5DmkII really?

« on: November 23, 2011, 04:51:33 PM »

...and you use good glass (pretty important if you want fast AF)...

Yep, my wife let's me use her 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 24-105mm f/4.0L, the 85mm f/1.8, etc, so I'm good on glass.

Noise can be reduced, image can be sharpened but those OOF shots are not going to do you any good.

Wow, sometimes I miss (or forget) the obvious--thanks!

298

EOS Bodies - For Stills / How bad is the AF on 5DmkII really?

« on: November 23, 2011, 02:53:11 PM »

After shooting a cylcocross race this weekend, I am definitely feeling like I cannot wait until some of these rumors pan out to get my next body.  I cannot afford anything in the 1 series, so that leaves me with a 5DmkII or a 7d.  I tried a 7d this summer and was not thrilled with the sharpness of it (already discussed that in other threads, so not necessarily a focus of this one.)

I keep reading that the AF on the 5 is really pathetic, but rarely have a context for that, so it's hard to know if it applies to my scenario.

So the question is, will a 5DmkII work for me?  I am primarily shooting sports, but those with linear/predictable motion and a fairly big target (e.g. running races, bike races) and use the center spot for my AF.  Obviously that puts me outdoors, but that's not a guarantee of good light, but nearly always better than a dark gym.  I do not need fast fps, so that's not a deal breaker at all.  So for the given situation, will a 5DmkII track the cyclist coming down the road?  How quickly can it re-aquire if I change targets (i.e. 2 cyclists coming at me, I frame and shoot one and then switch to the other)?

As I alluded to, I was hoping to wait for the next gen of either the 5 or 7, but feel I can't wait any longer.  I can live with a 7, but if I'm putting out $1500+, I'd rather be happy with my purchase than just "not unhappy."   

Thanks!

299

Lenses / Re: Future standard changes to canon L series wide-medium primes and zooms

« on: November 23, 2011, 10:34:39 AM »

Maybe we can get some camera stuff made out of this:

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/check-out-the-worlds-lightest-material/?hpt=hp_bn2

300

Lenses / Re: Future standard changes to canon L series wide-medium primes and zooms

« on: November 23, 2011, 10:11:43 AM »

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.

You are almost correct, except steel and aluminum are engineered as well.  I want mine to be solid iron straight out of the mine, or better yet, maybe granite!  /sarcasm