October 01, 2014, 04:22:18 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 - kirispupis

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 21
181
Lenses / Re: Going to Disneyland and San Diego and need lens help
« on: April 26, 2012, 11:27:21 AM »
Within the past three years I have been to WDW twice, DL once, HK Disney once, and all of the parks in SD.  In terms of Disney, to be honest I would not take a DSLR there.  I took my 5D2 with me in the past and found it more cumbersome than usual.

There were admittedly times I was glad I had it.  The 5D2 + 50/1.4 were very useful for photographing + videoing the night show at California Adventure.  The 5D2 + 16-35 were also very useful in HK Disney - where we were chosen as Grand Marshalls for the day and were paraded across the park.

On our last trip, though, I only took my Fuji X10 and it was by far the best choice I ever made.  It is small enough to fit in a pocket and takes great pictures.  Here is a set of shots I took with it there - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157628607245971/.  I really felt sorry for the poor souls lugging around DSLRs while trying to hold their kids hands and go on rides.  I have done that myself and it just isn't worth it.

For San Diego, that is a bit different question.  For SeaWorld and LegoLand I would only take my X10.  For the zoo and animal park, you'll really need a DSLR + decent lens.  I used my 70-200/2.8 II quite often for photographing the animals and even added my 2x III extender a number of times.  Of the lenses you list the 70-200/4 IS would probably be the best bet.  You should also consider adding a 1.4 extender.  You could just take a 24-105 if all you're really interested in is family shots and not so much the animals.

182
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Hands-on Experience with the 1DC
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:41:10 AM »
Nice!  Being more into photography I am not very interested in the 1DC, but I am curious what the CN-E 50 is capable of.  From the specs it looks to have amazing bokeh.

183
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 23, 2012, 06:22:30 PM »
But I really don't see the relevance of this. Again, I believe this is just a data dredging exercise that Canon fans have undertaken because they are unhappy with the 5DIII test scores. The complaint is misdirected -- they should be complaining to Canon.

As far as I can see this here is about DXO and how they do their tests (number ratings) and not limited to the academic poor sensor quality of the 5d MKIII... I guess there are 3-4 other threads in this forum here parallel to this one where people who never used the MK III on their own are doing this...  Btw I own both the MKII and MK III so I can at least tell that the MKIII is much better IQ wise... and I have also tested most of lenses myself so I know that the 300mm f2.8 II is the about the highest resolving lens I have ever seen.

I absolutely agree with you here on the 5D2 vs. 5D3.  What I find funny/sad is how many people there are who prefer to trust a number vs. reviews from people who have actually used both cameras.  DXO is a joke. They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42.

many people have tested both and surprise, surprise, they get the same dynamic range findings as DxO did, so no, DxO sensor tests are not a joke (maybe their lens tests though ;D)

Really?  Where are these people?  Are they Oompa Loompas or real people?

Of the folks here who owned a 5D2 and now have a 5D3, how many agree with DXO that the 5D3 is only marginally better for high ISO?  Of those who have a 1D4 and a 5D2, how many agree with DXO that the 5D2 has better high ISO (admittedly I do not own a 1D4 but everyone I know who owns both cameras believes the 1D4 is a bit better).

184
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:29:38 AM »
They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42.

Wait, wait, Douglas Adams have the 5DIII a score of 42?!?   :o

If Douglas Adams did, I would trust it more than I trust the DXO score. :)

185
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sorry 5D3, Insufficient Value
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:27:50 AM »
What I find funny is how all of the negative '5D3 isn't worth it' replies are coming from people who do not actually own the camera.

I think it is valid to make up one's mind based on tech specs, iq comparisons and reading many reviews, and I don't think having something in your hand magically adds something to this apart from the fact that all current dslr bodies are "good and fun to shoot with".

Properly done reviews are useful, but nothing takes the place of actually trying it out for yourself.  It's kind of like reading a review on a new Ferrari. Sure, I can read a review and make a call whether it's worth it, but ultimately if I need to know what the car is truly like I need to get inside one and drive it.

I read quite a bit of info and looked at a lot of sample images of the 5D3 before mine arrived, but there's a big difference between seeing someone else's ISO 12800 shots and examining your own.  Only when you integrate the camera into your professional workflow can you truly see how well the camera fits you.

Keep in mind that my definition of "worth it" is entirely a professional one.  The way I see it, if the income I make from shots not possible (or not sellable) with my 5D2 but possible and sellable from my 5D3 exceeds $3500, then the camera is worth it.  So far, the combination of high ISO performance, much better AF, and little things like the viewfinder leveler mean that for my uses this is very likely the case.

For the hobbyist this is a more difficult decision and depends on where you put your values.  Even a hobbyist, though, will not truly understand the value of the camera without trying it out.

186
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 22, 2012, 09:56:32 AM »
But I really don't see the relevance of this. Again, I believe this is just a data dredging exercise that Canon fans have undertaken because they are unhappy with the 5DIII test scores. The complaint is misdirected -- they should be complaining to Canon.

As far as I can see this here is about DXO and how they do their tests (number ratings) and not limited to the academic poor sensor quality of the 5d MKIII... I guess there are 3-4 other threads in this forum here parallel to this one where people who never used the MK III on their own are doing this...  Btw I own both the MKII and MK III so I can at least tell that the MKIII is much better IQ wise... and I have also tested most of lenses myself so I know that the 300mm f2.8 II is the about the highest resolving lens I have ever seen.

I absolutely agree with you here on the 5D2 vs. 5D3.  What I find funny/sad is how many people there are who prefer to trust a number vs. reviews from people who have actually used both cameras.  DXO is a joke. They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42. 

187
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sorry 5D3, Insufficient Value
« on: April 22, 2012, 09:52:30 AM »
What I find funny is how all of the negative '5D3 isn't worth it' replies are coming from people who do not actually own the camera.  I did upgrade from the 5D2 to the 5D3 and absolutely find it to be worth it.  The shots that I will take in the next few years that I could not have taken without the 5D3's AF or high ISO quality will easily pay for it.

Stop looking at the numbers.  Go out there and actually try to camera before commenting on it.

188
Lenses / Re: 100L vs 70-200L II for portraits
« on: April 22, 2012, 09:48:42 AM »
I also own both lenses and strongly favor the 70-200 II for portraits.  At 200mm and F2.8 the bokeh is hard to beat (without spending at least $5k).  I use both lenses very often, but for people the 70-200 is my first choice.

189
Even if you could do everything in the Nik Suite with just PS, it would take you many, many hours to draw the masks that they enable in just a few clicks. Many of their effects also are simply not possible to create with just PS.  Most of the top Photoshop pros I know use their suite.

I use their suite on almost every post processed image and definitely find it to be worth it.  In particular I use Color Efex, Viveza, and DFine on most shots. Sharpener and SilverEfex are also very useful.  My one complaint with them is they do not offer reduced price updates for owners of the complete package as they update individual components.

In terms of price, if you are patient they have deals from time to time.  A good place to look is Ron Martinsen's blog - http://www.ronmartblog.com/.  They usually have nice discounts around December.

190
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 20, 2012, 10:17:18 PM »
People trust DXO because they do not have the skills/time to actually learn photography.  Rather than think for themselves, they trust some company to compute a number and believe if they own the camera with the highest number, their photography will automatically improve.

191
In terms of sharpness, the 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8 II are about the same.  They are also similar in terms of AF.

If you're getting paid for this and are on a budget, I would recommend the 400/5.6.  I honestly have no experience with it - though I do own its sister lens the 300/4.  I would expect it to be much quicker than the first two in terms of AF.

For sports shots AF speed will be your primary concern.  If you can, the best option would obviously be to rent a 400/2.8.

Note that I have noticed that on the 5D3 my 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III does seem to AF faster.  I would still not call it a speed demon, but I did manage to get this shot with it - http://500px.com/photo/6268179

192
You can see a comparison of them here - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

I have the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III and used to own the 100-400 (I sold it to finance the 70-200).  Although I did not own them at the same time, my experience mirrors the results from the link above - the 100-400 is slightly better. However, the difference is not huge and really takes pixel peeping to notice.  Given the versatility of the 70-200/2.8 II, IMHO this is the far better choice.

193
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D3 vs 7D for birding thoughts
« on: April 03, 2012, 10:26:20 PM »
Thank you for the replies, but just to target this discussion.

- I am sure a 1D4 is much better than a 7D, but that is not the question.  The question is whether it is worth keeping the 7D along with a 5D3.

- I already have both the 5D3 and the 7D, so it is not a question about which camera to purchase.  I have already compared the two cameras - unscientifically - and found that even when the crop is considered the 5D3 produces much better images.  My main question was whether anyone else who actually has both cameras has done a similar comparison.

194
Just curious, I know almost nothing about astrophotography, but how does the 60Da compare to the sensors that cost tens of thousands of $ that many astrophotography nuts use?  I am mainly curious to know what the difference is.

195
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D3 vs 7D for birding thoughts
« on: April 03, 2012, 03:54:33 PM »
I have taken two bodies on my last two trips - to Uzbekistan/Tajikistan and to China.  At the time I felt it was very useful.  I generally kept a TS-E 24 II on my 5D2 and a 70-200/2.8 II to my 7D.  This allowed me to quickly take photos near and far.  However, looking through my photos from those trips I do wonder if this really helped my photography.

The problem is I travel with my wife and two kids and I therefore have a feeling two bodies cause me to rush more than if I just took my time with one.  I also have shots where I pushed my 7D too much.  Had I taken it with the 5D2 the shot would have been better.

I do believe for pro jobs such as weddings two cameras are essential, but for my travel purposes I am beginning to think they are not.

The main question though is whether I am giving up anything wildlife-photography wise through losing the crop the 7D offers.  So far on initial inspection this does not appear to be the case, but I am curious to hear other opinions.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 21