September 18, 2014, 01:48:33 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 01:25:52 PM »
Perhaps not a clown, but his motivation is the same as KR's – driving Internet traffic to his site for profit.

I will take that one step further.

Either Tony Northrup is:

1)  Incompetent as a photographer

2)  Deceitful

Either one is bad in my book.

If he wants to do a review of two cameras, know how to set them up to get the most out of them,  if he can't, then he is incompetent, should do more research on the cameras he is reviewing, and perhaps even learn a bit about photography.  To demonstrate a glaring lack of knowledge of the Canon system and then make comments related to pro-usage either shows him to be a sham or an idiot.


He can be a down right disingenuous pr&*k who intentionally took bad photos to tilt a review.

I have my ideas and others can form their own opinion.

And while KR is a tool, it is really not nice to throw him in the likes of Tony Northrup.  TN aspires to one day be as suave and savvy as KR

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 10:02:17 AM »
Most importantly... Lets keep comparing an 2 year old camera to one that was just released.  The fact that it is in the ballpark in most area and better in other... Shesh...

Northrup is a clown... While he bashes the 5D MK III as being an amateur camera only and that Pros like him should be using Nikon, he proves he does not use the Canon as evident by his settings. 

The 810 is a decent camera, so is the 5D MK III.  Is the 810 better?  In some areas maybe, I would expect that for a camera that is two years newer... and while the D5MKIV may be 6 months or even a year out, I wonder is when this leap frogs the 810 if the Nikon folks will be stammering that it is a newer camera so of course it will be better.

If I was a new buyer maybe I would look at the two and choose the 810 over the 5DMKIII.  Don't know.  There is not enough of a difference to make me want to switch. 

But what remains constant... wait another year to 18 months and both sides will have better cameras... In the end, that cannot be a bad thing... Expensive to swap bodies again and again, but that has always been the case

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:36:53 PM »
Hey, I am going on a unicorn photo expedition in January, I need that slightly-better-than-70D high-ISO noise performance.   8)

Bigger pixels give more electron capacity per pixel (say, 4 micron pixel has 30,000 maximum capacity, 7 micro pixel has 100,000 maximum capacity). So, say you have 14-bit ADC, that's roughly 16,000 levels of electrons, or about 2 electrons per level for the 4 micron pixel and 6 electrons per level for the 7 micron pixel. Say you have 30 electrons worth of noise. Noise takes up the first 15 levels for the 4 micron pixel and the first 5 levels for the 7 micron pixel. That's why bigger pixels, all other things being equal, result in less perceptible noise.

Ummm... Where did I put the tylenol... I have a headache

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:37:55 AM »
I still can't fathom how folks are demanding ISO performance that meets or exceeds any Full Frame level. Check back into reality or buy Full Frame. Only setting yourself up for guaranteed disappointment. Even Canon is not able to defy the properties of light and matter.  ::)

One I own Full Frame and mainly full frame - 5D MK III and II and use a t4i for backup video

Been less than impressed with ISO above 800 on the 5D MK III especially noise on faces when shooting natural light in studio.  Granted the 1Dx would be a far better choice, but given it has been 5 years since the 7D, 3 years since the 1Dx and 2.5 since the 5D MK III, one would hope that Canon has made significant inroads in sensor technology, especially given what some of the competition is doing.

It would be nice to see Canon release a new "King of the Crop" followed up by a High MP beast, 1Dxs and 5D MK IV

1Dx and 5D MKIII were decent step ups, but in the world of "what have you done lately", Canon's pro level bodies have been fairly stagnant

All things being equal, FF should beat crop on noise, but would not mind seeing a generational jump where a crop comes close and then the next gen FF blows the doors off. 

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:23:48 AM »
... and improved ISO (5d MKIII or better)

I do believe in Santa Claus. I do I do I do.  And flying reindeer.  And rainbow-pooping unicorns.  Any of those are more likely to be real than an APS-C sensor that's as good or better than the 5DIII at high ISO. 

In a fight between physics and fantasy, my money is on physics.   8)

You are so mean! 

Not like the 5D MKIII is really setting the bar too high.  I notice a lot of noise above ISO 800)

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:50:30 AM »
Curious to see.  IF it is a 24MP with better HIGH ISO and stellar AF AND around $2K or less, than I should be in.  Really will have to wait and see the final specs, but really want better than 20MB, solid AF with a wider spread... and improved ISO (5d MKIII or better) than I will be fairly happy

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 11:49:45 AM »
If these specs are close, it is a bit disappointing.  If they were going to stay right around 20MB, I would want higher ISO.  If they are keeping this size, there needs to be a significant improvement in DR.

The 65 AF could be nice.  Will be interesting to see the spread and how well it functions.  Was really hoping for 24MP+ and closer to 30.

I think ones I use are from GSK. 

I have to replace them every 6 months or so, mainly form things getting banged into my bag and the way my camera sits with long lens attached. 

I don't say this to be mean, but WHAT ARE YOU THINKING.

For one, what is the distance between you and what you are shooting?  Shooting from the stands to the pitcher with a single 600EX-RT???

Inverse-square law... To have any real affect, you are going to need to crank it.  Now if you had a monolight on a battery pack, that would be a different story but your flash is really not strong enough to make an impact, especially a day game, but even in a night game, the stadium lights should be generally sufficient

Second.  You need fast telephoto glass.  F/4 with a 1.4 is slow, not to mention the AF with a Teleconverter is deliberately slowed down.  You will get better shots with with a 400 F/4 than a 200 2.8 with a 2x converter. 

A 2.8 to 4 is a full stop so you can boost shutter and not have to bump ISO.   A 200 f/2 is an awesome option for this and gives you even more light. 

Flash at sporting events is a No-No.  Basketball and Hockey are two of the only sports I know that allows flash, but that is for the game shooters and the strobes are up in the ceiling and pointed down, not at eye level from the stands.  These are also extremely powerful strobes with very short durations so for the most part, people do not even notice. 

I’m starting this thread to tell of my recent Canon Canada (Mississauga Service Center) experience with not only two of their top-of-the-line products, but with their customer service as well. I apologize for the length, but I'm trying to provide context to the story.

EF 24-70 f/2.8 II Story

How did the images look?  Did you do a lot of shooting or just rely on "FoCal"

I have used the FoCal software, am an owner and yup... I have used my 24-70 II for over a year, wanted to make sure with FoCal and gave me the same crap.  Remeasured based upon the guidance, re-did it and then came up with NO-ADJUSTMENT.

FoCal can be great.  It also can be a piece of crap.  I find this true on the WIDE side versus the Tele.  My 24-70 II is fine, though everytime I test it with FoCal I get different results... That tells me the software is crap.... May be solid for a lot of things, does not mean it does not have trouble at distances or with certain lenses. 

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 19, 2014, 04:56:31 AM »

If his goal is to test the best you can do under tripod usage or great lighting why is that not fair? Why would it be fair to penalize the D810 just because the 5D3 doesn't do ISO100?

Because if you want to compare quality of images, you need to compare at same settings

For one comparing a new camera to a two year old camera, one would hope there were large improvements... I mean quickly... lets takes some bets... Will the 7DMKII out perform the 7D?  How about the 5DMKII vs the 5DMKIII

Side by side comparison of a Nikon 8XXD to a Canon 5D MKIII are difficult because of image size, zooming in or compressing, either way the image has changed.

But too my point.  If you want to look at image to image, you need to use the same settings. 

If the answer is that at 100 the images have negligible difference, but the 8XXd has Iso 64 and the extra ISO helps with noise and quality, then that says two different things.

As far as tracking, and AF hits in burst.... I would have much preferred to see real action in real environments, such as shooting at F/5.6 or F/8 at ISO 1200 at 1/1000 or faster.  This also required that camera is set up properly, which it is clear it was not. 

What I don't know is if Tony Northrup is ignorant or dishonest.  Did he not know how to set up the camera to get proper AF tracking, or did he deliberately shoot it at a non-optimal setting.

I believe he made a comment about "If you are a professional..." or something like that... Seems to me a professional would either KNOW, or if they are getting results that are less than they expect, they research

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:36:04 PM »
You want to go down the rabbit whole further...

Look into Stanley Kubrik.

The back of Napkin telling...

NASA / CIA trying to fake... because of technology, Space race, and $$$  Looking for a fast win and PR

Kubrick hired to "consult" to help shoot.  Kubrick had done amazing things with Dr Strangelove and despite Air Force blocking, had impressed a lot of people

Kubrick finally agrees, sees NASA and CIA have collective heads up collective asses, takes over for Carte Blanche and to be left alone.  Kubrick told fine, but if he talks, he and family killed.

Lunar landing "Happens" and Kubric becomes a recluse of sorts.  Movies become increasingly symbolic with tons of themes related to New World Order, Mind Control, etc.

Eyes Wide Shut gets produced - Supposedly a view into Sex Cults, but more of the men who run the world.  Kubrick screens film at his home, shortly there after has mysterious death, Eyes Wide Shut undergoes a 30 minute re-cutting and that footage never seen again.

Those are unrelated except for Kubrick, as well as one of the key science advisors on 2001 was key scientist for Apollo

Lots of goodies here:

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:50:29 AM »
The problem with MythBusters... All they do is conduct some tests, whether the tests are flawed or not, and then draw a conclusion for TV.  Just because their "test" does not work, does not mean the Myth is false, it just means they could not replicate it. 

It took DECADES to disprove the Lochness  and Bigfoot pictures... Or in one case... One they "scientifically" disproved - you can't get electrocuted pissing on something electrical...

Problem is... There was a gentleman in NY, found dead in a subway... near the 3rd rail, and small burn on his thumb and forefinger, big burn on the head of his member.   

Me thinks they should go back... Fill up their bladders more fully and try this again and again.

If at first you don't succeed, try try again...

As for me... I take the record of of a Doctor, the evidence, and a death certificate over a made for tv show... Joseph Patrick O’Malley the deceased would probably agree.

Seriously.  This one is not hard to prove as well as not hard to see the flaw in their testing... "Lets really fill the bladder to bursting and then piss as hard as we can" 

Seems to me this is one they did not have the guts, heart, and stamina to replicate, though it does prove they can draw false conclusions which makes everything else they have done suspect, and perhaps so much of the "myths" they have disproved are more of sloppy tests and not enough variation, creativity, and dedication

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Video capturing stops without reason
« on: August 17, 2014, 03:40:32 PM »
Best two suggestions for you...

Test it and watch it... Then get or borrow a faster card and see if it happens.

Slow cards are not noticeable in when you are shooting pictures generally unless you are doing a long burst.   Video??? As you have found, can be noticeable in the first minute

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 16, 2014, 01:14:12 PM »
Finally... A long tele that has decent resolution and reach and is hand holdable

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26