March 06, 2015, 09:17:14 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 - birdman

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
There's so many examples of excellent 5d2 and 5d3 landscape shots out there that DR limitations are not as prevalent as reading this forum would suggest IMHO.

It's as simple as a higher MP competing FF body that came along and bested Canon's top MP in a couple of technical specs....according to DXO mark. The D800 is a great camera. The 5d2/5d3 are great cameras. What would sway me to the D800 (if I strictly did landscape photog) is more about Resolution, IQ, and Nikon's slightly better wide angle offerings.

I say slightly better because 1) I am a Canon owner and 2) I don't want to feel the wrath of hate if I claim this is better than that. This camera crap is only a hobby for me; an obsessive compulsive hobby, but still a hobby. Pardon the reference, but I see it as a D!ck measuring contest. "Mine is bigger than yours." Happy Father's Day folks. Time for some shut eye. GNite. 

Nice shot.

Thanks, bud. I am the OP by the way. I see no limitation to 5d2's DR. You should see how much detail I pulled from that particular shot.

Me and my ex-gf had driven back from a Deftones concert and had been up all night driving. We pulled over to rest and the morning was absolutely breath-taking. My *average* shots don't do it justice. The beauty of that morning cancelled out the ugliness and nastiness of the fighting we were doing driving from midnight to 6:30 am.

Would this be an example of DR? I took with 5d2 and edited some in LR 4.1.

Loving some Lightroom 4!!!!!!

Can anyone provide me with example(s) of pictures that needed high DR to expose/bring out shadows/clip highlights, etc.? I am trying to evaluate how important it is to my shooting.

With the 17-40L, I do need to upgrade in the future to get the most out of this 5d2 sensor. I am including 5d3 users in this conversation as well, since at low ISO these cameras are nearly identical. I think I have seen a few examples where my camera could use more DR, especially when pulling shadows and banding that occur (in these situations).

I just started using LR 4.0 so I have spent tons of time in post, but I do use DPP quite regularly. So, if you can provide some samples would be greatly appreciated.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing [CR1]
« on: June 07, 2012, 11:31:27 AM »
Assuming this rumor is true, I'd think Canon would still wait a couple of years before releasing it.  Everyone that would buy a camera like this just bought a D800/e or Canon 5D III; and if you're a professional you purchased two or three of them.  It will be at least three years before I consider purchasing another camera.

Everyone?? I see a lot of 5D II owners like myself that are not pushed to go to a 5DIII at all. And put off by the pain of starting a Nikon lenses collection. 5K for a camera along these lines would cost the same as a D800 and a 14-24mm lens and I'd be back to using my Canon 14mm L, 17mm TSE L, 24mm TSE L, and 24mm 1.4 L for architecture and landscape. Sign me up!

There are a few possible approaches to take.

1) Recognise that actually owning camera equipment is not very worthwhile unless it is making you money and/or you're using it regularly and then when you need it, rent/hire whatever happens to be the latest/best.

1a) Start up a Nikon lens collection, whilst keeping your Canon lens collection and just rent whatever body happens to be the latest/best/to your liking.

2) Build up an array of Nikon lenses, along with a D800 whilst keeping the Canon gear. Treat the bodies as something that can be sold/traded/whatever. Then you simply sell your older body and buy the new one whenever one manufacturer makes a big leap over the other.

----- I have actually built up a few Nikons for: a) to adapt and use on my 5d2
and/or b) To begin a collection in case Canon refuses to release high IQ ultra-wide lenses. Also, the average DR does disappoint on Canon's side; why are they so lagging behind Nikon's 5 year old D3 sensor? I don't understand.

Oh well, at least the f 4.0 affordable zoom market is dominated by Canon.....for now. I used to be able to say the same about normal range (24,35,50,85) prime lenses---but again, Nikon has jumped ahead for the moment.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600
« on: May 24, 2012, 04:10:25 PM »
No one with a huge investment in glass should EVER switch based on a new camera body. If that was the case, every Nikon pro would have switched to the 5d2--months before the D3X (24MP) was introduced.

Canon will counter eventually with similar DR and the likes. I like Canon's lens selection better, personally, with exception to the UWAs. Other than that, where is Nikon more dominant in terms of lens offerings?

Maybe the D600 will force the 5d3 to go down in price. I was on the D800 bandwagon myself, until I saw some amazing High ISO shots from the 5d3. If I have to reduce my image size on the D800 to match other DSLRs high ISO, how is it really comparable??

OP here. I see a lot of folks with various suggestions, all of which are greatly appreciated.

My thoughts are this: 17-40; 35/1.4; 50/1.8 are the lenses I currently own AND would not consider selling. I need the 17-40 for wide angle, and frankly it never gets used past about 24mm. The 35L for low-light and street photos; same with 50/1.8.

I would replace my 28-135 w/ 24-105 because: 1) They are very cheap used now that it's been the kit lens for all (3)  three 5d camera bodies. Many, many of those in the used/new market. 2) I may get another body, either a 40D or 5dClassic in the future.

Lastly, it's not so much overlap as it is different needs. The 24-105 and 70-200 are BOTH very versatile FLs....paired to either FF or cropped bodies. I need IS because I have unsteady hands and don't use my tripod very much--only on landscape shots. I want to start doing modeling work, and hopefully that will come in time. I don't see how the 24-105 & 70-200 would be bad choices for that type of work either. The 100 macro NEVER gets touched any more. Haven't shot a single picture with it in nearly two years.

I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:

70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!!  Thanks

While I hate to mention his name on this site, KRockwell has determined that the 5d3 is the BETTER camera. Haha.

Not that it isn't....I don't know that answer. I do know that KR benefits from folks clicking on his links to buy cameras that are actually shipping. And this leads us to the most available of the new DSLRs-- 5d3.

I am no longer going to believe that anyone has a motive, other than profit, in recommending gear over other gear---unless we're on forums. forget DXO, DPREVIEW, DSLR magazines, etc. There is a profit motive with ALL OF THEM!!! and no sarcastic responses please. It's just my thoughts on how people on the line (housewives, amateurs, teenagers, middle-aged adults) can be persuaded by capitalists.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - Your thoughts
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:54:16 AM »
I think it will be a great addition for wedding photogs, but as a walk around a little too large....and zoom range a little too short on FF.

It looks to be incredible, and it is incredibly priced as well. It'll be the definitive 24-70 zoom of ALL manufacturers, besting Nikon's counterpart, Sony's counterpart, and killing the new Tamron 24-70 VC in IQ alone.

If they'd included IS the image quality would have taken a slight hit I honestly believe. I'm sure they researched it, tested it, and developed the lens according to those factors. I will never get it, opting for the 24-105 or it's replacement if that ever comes to fruition. I need IS on a zoom, no doubt.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm 1'4L USM or 50mm 1'2L USM for weddings
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:49:17 AM »
Hey there,

As a owner of the 35L, I can say that on FF cameras, it is a wonderful FL. Not great for portrait work, obviously, but excellent for miscellaneous work like shots of the wedding cake, flowers, wedding bands, etc. It has top notch IQ, even wide open.

I think the 50/1.2 is a little overpriced myself. I know a guy that does some weddings and he swears by it---even over his 85/1.2L. Hope this helps...

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/14
« on: May 14, 2012, 09:37:46 AM »
Better bokeh, aspherical element, seven blades for 14-pt. sunstars, better flare control, better CA control, exotic lens coating on at least one element, "L" designation, lighter than Siggy 50/1.4, 58mm filter size, under $700, excellent sharpness across frame from 1.8 and smaller

You win, Marsu42. Not a troll, and will be clearer next time. BTW, what telephoto did you have before the 70-300L ? I am about to get rid of my (non-L) 70-300 and 100 macro. Thanks

I am OP: To answer some of your questions and comments, it was pretty much intended as a joke.

:-) Maybe you should post a list of your equipment in your tag or footer, so everybody can judge how much advice you really need. And looking at the serious, helpful replies you generated, you should think about switching to another forum or getting a life so you don't need to bother other people here.

That's just damn rude my friend. If you'd read, the only joke intended was concerning bikinis. I wanted serious advice. Go back to your dark dungeon, evil one!!

EOS Bodies / 5d3-- importance of High ISO abilities VS. more DR?
« on: May 13, 2012, 11:40:01 PM »
I have the 5d2, as most readers would know by now. The 5d3 is tempting me, but I shoot mostly low ISO landscapes. I read the DR of the 5d3 is nearly same as 5d2, but of course high ISOs are much, much cleaner as I can clearly see.

Is DR overrated?? Would bracketing correctly be essentially the same fix? Or HDR? I hate the look of most HDR images, as they look uber-fake and photoshopped to the max. I see DR this, DR that in regards to the D800.

Please give an easy laymen's term explanation of the advantage of more DR which Nikon seems to excel in at the moment. Thanks

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9