May 24, 2013, 01:30:36 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 10:34:48 AM »
Sounds like a killer camera.  I skipped the 5DMKIII in favor of keeping my 5DMKII and have slowly been saving up for the 1Dx - the 5DMKIII just was not enough of a leap to justify.

Now the 7DMKII - would be nice to have some reach back.  As long as it has awesome AF, decent ISO, could be a real winner.  I like the integrated grip, that saves me $100 going aftermarket or $250 going Canon and I have had a grip on my camera for as long as I can remember. 

Price.  Will have to see.  Not sure I can see Canon pricing the 7DMKII more the the 5DMKIII.

I am not thinking a $2K camera, but probably in the $2599 to $2899 range

Real tempting for pre-sale, but thinking if it is close to rumored specs and anywhere close to my range estimate, then likely hunt for holiday sale

32
STAY AWAY FROM DELL.

Worst Monitors I have owned.  I am going on my 4th monitor in 5 months because of dead/dying pixels and other issues. 

Specs are nice - but product is crap.  Your luck may vary, but I don't even bother putting the box in the attic any more... I just leave it right besides the desk. 

Maybe Dell can offer a new service and include a future dated RMA with every purchase.

33
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 31, 2013, 07:38:26 AM »
My experience has been they are over all:

-- Faster
-- Sharper

I shoot a 2.8 version versus an F/4 version at say 4 or 5.6, I notice better AF and better over all quality on the shots on the 2.8 version.  I think with most zoom lenses, they have most of their issues at the end so a F/4 lens may be fairly equal to the 2.8 at say F/8 or F/11, but more wide open, especially at F/4 the 2.8 has always out performed in my experience. 

In many case, I find the build and over all range of the lens to be better.  This may be subjective, but in a similar example in the 50s, is the 1.2 really that much better than the 1.4 and the 1.8. 

Yeah.  It is.  Granted, it is an L versus non L as well, but I noticed a huge difference stepping up from the 70-200 F/4 to F/2.8, especially in speed.  Some may argue the price, and the F/4 is a solid performer, but when it comes down to it, with almost anything in life, if your desired range is at the edge of a products capability, you are often better off finding the product that slightly to moderately exceeds your need. 

34
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: December 19, 2012, 03:02:23 PM »

your answer is  clever like  as -  all Canons gear is worthless
Please point why and  how the DXO sensor measurement is faulty.

Which is a better overall camera?  The D4 or the D600?

Which will take the best picture?  The D4 or the D600?

Which has a better Dx0Mark Score? 

The answer to the first 2 is the D4, and any HONEST person would agree

Yet the Dx0 Mark for the D600 is over 5% higher? 

Sort of PROVES my point the the Dx0Mark score is MEANINGLESS

Or perhaps you are trying to say that Nikon throws poor sensors in their flagship camera (meaning that the D4 is SUPER over priced)

35
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: December 19, 2012, 09:23:24 AM »
DxOMark scores are junk and meaningless.  While there may be a "methodology" to their testing, their score are meaningless for comparison between two cameras, and this is not a Nikon versus Canon debate, but when you see clearly more advanced and better performing camera producing lower results, that alone is justification that the significance of their numbers is in fact, insignificant. 

Is the D600 5 points better than the D4? 

According to dxOMarks, the D600 is a 94 and one of the best cameras tested, and the D4 a lousy 89. 

By DxOMarks scores, the Nikon flagship is crap and over priced.

As well... how can you have a score of "94" and then try shooting above ISO 3200 and see what you get for results. 

If money was not an object, would you buy a D4 or a D600?    According to Dx0marks you are an idiot if you buy the D4 because the D600 is vastly a better scoring camera...

Then again... I think the real idiots are the one who pay attention to Dx0Marks.


36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Alternative (to weddings) revenue stream
« on: December 03, 2012, 07:52:30 AM »
I appreciate you sharing your experiences, but I think you've missed a whole segment of the population. I can't provide any sort of scientific analysis but I can tell you with some certainty that there's a whole class of people - doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, accountants, police officers, firemen- for whom it's become a cultural thing. These people have organized clubs and social groups, posted to Facebook pages and created web sites.

Nobody takes it too seriously but at the same time they're doing 2 or three halfs (halves?) per year. My professional association sponsors one each spring plus a 5K in early summer. Many of these people would buy a photo each and every time if it was only ten bucks- it's a little more personal than the medal or the teeshirt. Being in the group photo to be posted in the corporate magazine has become de rigueur. Unfortunately, in our case these company trophy shots are still being taken with iphones and pocket cameras.

Nope.  Have not missed your segment.  I think you for one over estimate it, i.e. people really quickly fall into the bucketlisters or the enthusiast and the excitement of photos, especially PAYING for photos quickly wears off even at $10 a pop.  You also over underestimate the time ans expenses to do decent shots, go through and select, process, tag, and make available.  A few orgs I know that are out there GIVE their photos away... i.e. they pay the photogs just like they would pay Brightroom, but instead of having sales, they give the photos, just like the swag T-shirt or medal, etc. 

Even if such a segment may be a little larger than I think, it is still vastly smaller that those in the groups I mentioned.  You have 50 people come into your area at the same time, and you only have a few seconds to acquire, frame, focus and repeat.  Triathlons as well tend to spread out a lot more than your average road race, so much easier to shoot the bike or the run portion.

Long and short, you have a small window to pick and choose your targets, spend 3 seconds trying to wait for the target to put on a decent face or another runner gets in the way and you have lost the opportunity to shoot another 1 or 2 runners that you will not get. 

It is EASY to sit there, pick out a dozen people you want to shoot at a race, shoot them, and maybe even shoot them in multiple places or from the same place in say and out-n-back portion of a race. 

It is a far different beast to have a race with a thousand people and try and shoot 950 of them to try and find the ones who MIGHT be one of the smaller segment that might want to buy photos.  There will be people who are always blocked by someone else and you never get a clear shot, their face or set up looks crappy, and taking a bad picture is worse than none at all, and actually as bad as some of race photography is, a lot is discarded because of how embarrassing it is, and lastly you even have a dozen people come through, you pretty much have to pick them off as best you can and half the time after you shot someone and moved on, THEN they give you a better look that you snapped. 

Forgot to mention.  Most of your shooting locations, there is a small "sweet spot" where the background is appealing, you don't have a mail box, road sign, telephone pole or other crap in the way.  There is also a sweet spot of angle shooting the runner or cyclist that looks good to blah, as well as once a person starts getting at an angle to you, you loose their bib number or the bibs drift to the other side of their hip, etc.

My suggestion... Find a large race... sit out there and try and shoot.  Granted a lot of event photography is crap because the shooters are not athletes, and my photography in this milleu is better because I have a relationship with the athletes; I shoot them as I want to be shot as well as from feedback of what people really like.  I think what you will find is that your photography may be a better than the event photography, the majority of the images drift down the scale as you start shooting volume compared to when you are able to focus on a dozen or so athletes. 

37
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Alternative (to weddings) revenue stream
« on: November 30, 2012, 12:49:13 PM »
A few comments from my peanut gallery. 

10Ks, Halfs and full marathons... YAWN.  Try Ironman competitions.   Yes.  I do all of these.

I have shot both Olympic Distance and Half Ironman distance races and the reason the photos are so much is the pass through of actual purchase is little.  There are several class of people who do these races, the "bucket-listers" who are looking to finish, the "weekend warriors" who are penny pinching to do as many races as possible, and then the pro/semi-pro who likes to have photos for FB, sponsors, etc. 

Shooting these events are not easy, especially crowded running races.

People want INDIVIDUAL shots.  they are not looking for a group pic, unless they are next to someone famous, so if the course is looped and a pro racer or someone notable is passing a bucket-lister, then you might have a shot where they are "Cool.... look at me running with X"

Access to the courses is not always simple.  In most cases you are dealing with blocked roads, crowds and once you get your spot, you are often stuck in your spot for a long time, and to get your best shot, you often have to "encroach" on the course, so not having credentials can create issues, as well as all the iPhoners who jump in your way.  You have credentials you can tell them to back away since you have race permission and are actually part of the course, as well as for me, I can whip around the actual course on my motorcycle and get to different spots.

Shooting is not always easy or fun.  I have been stuck at the side of the road for 4 hours and the race comes at you in feast and famine, and again, when you have 200 runners coming by you over a couple of minutes, trying to get "nice" shots can be a challenge, people are always coming in and out of frame and most of the time people look like they are about to take a dump, have a horrible expression on their face, or are blowing out a snot-rocket that looks like it is two tablespoons worth of tarter sauce (actual experience of a very well known female triathlete and when I saw it unfolding deliberately pointed the camera down to give her peace and space... respect goes a long way) 

While it is true, most athletes are psyched to get a great pic, most are blase and some of the best folks out there that will shoot well could care less about another pic. 

I think three or four of my shots are still currently FB avatars for some of the pros that I shot this last year, but I gave them those shots because I consider them friends, love seeing them out there and they are helping me as much as I am helping them.

Not saying there is not money to be made, but you would probably be more profitable shooting Senior Portraits off a listing on Craigslist

I am working it the opposite... trying to work with the lower level pros to build their image, license the race images to their sponsors, either for cash, or also works for me, gear (as in athletic gear, not camera gear) 

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help me upgrade my 550d
« on: November 14, 2012, 05:58:42 AM »
You like to waste your money.

If 80% of what you will shoot is portrait, then my a 5DMKII and better glass.

While some of the ISO is better on the 5DMKIII and the AF greatly improved, most of that will help the sports or activity shooter. 

Current 5DMKII owner who moved up from the 550D about a year ago, and more than happy with the move.   The new AF on the 5DMKIII may help me get a slightly better number of keepers, but that is hard for me to justify a $1400 increase in price, where that could go to upgrading my 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 to the L versions, not to mention you will loose reach jumping to FF.

For me, I am saving for another year or so and going to the 1DX or perhaps the large MP on the horizon depending on where it fits capability wise.

For where you are and what you shoot, going to a 5DMKII and then selling your 70-200 F4 IS and going 70-200 F/2.8 IS II is about the same as buying a 5D MKIII but a more significant upgrade. 

Given the generations of where the 5DMKII and MKIII are, a 5DMKII will do better than a 5DMKIII with cheap glass. 

Generally glass matter more than the body.

Only major upgrade in the MKIII is AF.  I shoot sports occasionally, and I could not justify the price jump to only go to the 5DMKIII so saving up another $3K to make a much more significant jump. 


39
EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?
« on: November 13, 2012, 11:20:41 PM »
I didn't even try Auto ISO until I got my 5DMkIII (previous cameras were 40D which unfortunately was stolen and subsequently 5DMkII). Coming from the film era, having the ability to choose the ISO in the digital cameras is more than enough for me.

Shush... Clearly this is a person who has not discovered "M", "TV" and "AV" modes. 

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:43:51 PM »
Between the wife and myself we have 5 Canon bodies and 18 lenses of which only the 15mm fish eye and an old 100 macro are not L glass, with 7 series 2 lenses, so there is a sizable investment in Canon kit.
...


Lets see the Nikon crap capture this image at ISO 25K from a helicopter.



Sounds to me most of the better shooter just happened to be using Nikon

41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 02:17:51 PM »
Ummm.... Where to start.

1) Data management.

HDs are CHEAP.  In fact at $99 for a 1TB even some 2TB drives, you can easily have a large drive and keep a full back up for cheap.   There 1TB drives will hold roughly 40,000 25MB files. 

I frequently will go through my photos when importing as well as after a review or two and trash the images that really were bad. 

2) Workflow time with only RAW files.

Workflow is easy with JPG because the image is crap, and what you can do with the image is crap.  I had an event I was shooting a few months back and by mistake had hit the dial on my 5DMKII and went from TV to M and before I caught the change, had about 8 images that were 8 stops over exposed.  While not perfect, I was able to bring these shot back into usable photos in Lightroom.    Just a week ago, I was trying to work with a sunset photo my dad took with a Nikon and he shoots in JPG and I could do very little with the photo.  Really nice shot... had it been shot in Raw... it would have been stunning.... in JPG... Meh.

Does it take more time to work with raw?  Yeah.  It also takes more time to paint on canvas with oil paint than it takes to scribble on paper with crayon.

You just have to decide what you want to create. 

42
Lenses / Re: DXO - lens reviews - 300mm f/2.8 IS II - that bad ???
« on: October 15, 2012, 11:10:07 AM »
Just more confirmation that DxO is a total joke

Best comparison I can make, is DxOMark is to camera gear what The Food Reviewer is to Nutrition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VveunopMJXU

43
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 10:45:14 AM »
I took this 5 min ago to show the difference between one of  my 5dmk2 and d800

Ummmm  Why did you not compare the d800 to a 5DMKIII at least.

Maybe I should test my 5DMKII versus my dad's D200 as a similar test.  Any bets?


44
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:00:22 AM »

@tnargs, if anything, that just makes the main point of post #1 even stronger.  If DxO truly means that you can only use their scores to compare sensors of similar resolution, that make their results even more meaningless in the real world.  Furthermore, that begs the question - why normalize at all, if you can only compare sensors of simlar resolutions, normalization is moot. 


Exactly.

When I open up Road & Track and compare braking, 1/4 mile, and 0-60, 0-100 for a Ferrari versus a Hyundai, those tests stand up.

When I want to compare CPUs, I can use PassMark to see a plethora of different criteria and I can compare a Intel Celeron M 600Mhz to an Intel Core i7 3960X and QUANTITATIVELY see performance.

Granted in the CPU realm, Motherboard throughput will play a roll, but the speed of the calculations, etc is measurable, definable and COMPARABLE across generations.  So if I can compare the power of a 8 core CPU to a CPU from 8 years ago and measure the difference, how can I not DEFINITIVELY MEASURE a 36 MP sensor to a 10 MP sensor?

If you can't, then the TEST is MEANINGLESS.

The more I read the more I see just how flawed the DxOMarks scores are.  Anyone can produce DATA.  But data is not information. 

What DxOMarks lacks is RELEVANCE


45
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 07:47:26 AM »
I, for one, can't take DxOMark seriously or trust any of their numbers when they...

* Rank $40,000 medium format digital backs lower than consumer APS-C DSLRs.

* Report physically unachievable values for dynamic range (i.e. >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

* Report values for dynamic range that I know to be false from both personal experience and testing. (They rank the 10D, 20D, and 7D about the same. The 7D is a good 2 stops better.)

For all the critics of DxOMark critics, I would like to point out that no less a professional and respected figure than Michael Reichmann stopped using DxOMark because of the obvious errors he observed in their results.

All that said...I wish Canon would lower their prices  ;)

This +1000

Most people, especially Professionals in a field, are not fools.

What DxOMarks essentially says is ANYONE who has bought a D3x or D4 is a FOOL and wasted their money. when they could have gotten a D800 or D600 for THOUSANDS LESS.

In fact, if DxOMarks is to be trusted, then their should be screams that PhaseOne are TOTAL PIECES OF CRAP and that NIKON is ripping off people by selling any camera above $3000, because the D800 is the ONLY CAMERA anyone should buy willing to spend more than $3000 and those under should go for the D600. 

Not saying they are not good cameras, but what the last year plus has highlighted to me, DxOMarks Scores are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND MEANINGLESS.

An erroneous equation provides erroneous results

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21