August 28, 2014, 01:38:01 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 148
1
And way back when I was shooting 20D and 50D, the 50D sure gave me more detail for soccer pics.

And I guess all the tons of wildlife guys shooting 7D cameras are all foolish and should have just used a 5D2.

What kind of retort is that? Of course a crop camera with "more" will deliver "more".

I have always said there are very good reasons for using a crop camera over cropping a ff one, not least is cost, ease of framing, frame rate, etc etc, but "crazy clear" differences in resolution are not realistic and not achievable in even the most stringent of artificial testing scenarios.

2
"People use them all different ways. I have some tripod shots that make it crazy clear. Romy has tripod and hand-held test/bird shots that make it clear. I do have some shots of a woodpecker, I have to dig them up and put them online. It was pretty clear my 7D put more detail on it even though hand-held and at least ISO1600."



I'll believe it when I see them, no actually I won't, because when I did it there wasn't a meaningful difference so I will know you are not being fully open. Even in the absolute best set up totally artificial and remote from reality shooting test environments, in situations that maximise the differences and favour the crop camera, there is very little difference.

If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.

3

Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...
I'd go a step further: Why should I spend big bucks on a long lens and then use it unsupported? Getting a cheaper one and a good tripod for the difference would lead to better results.
Not that I'd want to handhold them for the amount of time normally involved with wildlife and such anyway.

Well I don't know about you but the vast majority of people I see using big white lenses are using them on a monopod, which isn't a test bench tripod. Of course there are many wildlife shooters using tripods, but one of the main selling points for the MkII superteles is that they are all handholdable, indeed there is one poster here who regularly uses his 800mm handheld and several who use the 600mm handheld.

There are so many long lens shooters for whom a tripod isn't an option, most sports shooters can't use tripods, paparazzi can't, have you been on safari? No tripods, sure you can use a bean bag or a window mount etc, but they also are not test bench level support. Th list goes on and on.

4
I just got a 5ft "alligator" named Mr Chompy*, I was thinking of ideas to make him move across the yard at a reasonable pace along a track.

But maybe I could strap a couple of my chickens* to a fan, at least we'd get the feather details  ;)

If you do tape a squirrel to your fan I'd suggest gaffer tape rather than duct tape, duct tape can really mess up the finish on the fan blades..........

*Mr Chompy is a soft toy, my chickens are real.

In all seriousness I actually did the tests a long time ago when I was interested in getting a 7D and compared it to my 1Ds MkIII (cropped) of the dog running across the yard, with 5 acres I have plenty of room to be focal length limited and the dog will chase a ball thrown to the same spot all day and night quite happily. Unfortunately I don't have the results anymore but might try again if I can borrow the 7D and temperatures drop below the 90's.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:50:04 PM »
Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast.  How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject?  Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate  your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests.  You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.
So lets see some your many "controlled tests" or maybe point us to any of the "... about only every test out there?" that demonstrate the the 7D resolution advantage when using cameras as most of us do most of the time, handheld with AF.
< WARNING! SARCASM AHEAD >
I can't speak for the two of you, but I ALWAYS carry around a crop camera and a FF camera and two sets of identical lenses  and take each picture with both cameras using the same settings......
< SARCASM ENDED >
Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...

I know Don, I was just giving Lee Jay a hard time for his "No? What about only every test out there?" comment. When the truth is none of the tests out there illustrate my point, which is sad when you consider that that is how most of us use a camera most of the time.

But leave it with me, I have some ideas and a friend with a 7D..........


6
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:28:06 PM »
Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast.  How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject?  Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate  your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests.  You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.
So lets see some your many "controlled tests" or maybe point us to any of the "... about only every test out there?" that demonstrate the the 7D resolution advantage when using cameras as most of us do most of the time, handheld with AF.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:36:14 PM »
Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast.  How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject?  Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate  your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:31:04 PM »
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

No? What about only every test out there?

7D has quite noticeably more reach than a 5D3 or 5D2. And I say that as someone who sold my 7D so I'm not some 7D owner making up justifications.

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

if you are okay with a realized 8Mp pixel image from your sensor as your output (as an example), then the 7D would realize an effective FoV equivalent of around 720mm on a 300mm lens.  The 1DX would have an effective FoV of around 450mm.

where you may get into problems is if your lenses can't handle the 18Mp APS-C sensor density - however if they can, especially at the center of the FF circle, than the 7D has a much higher effective FoV based upon it's pixel density - which is the equivalent of 46Mp for a full frame sensor.

even if you are not cropping the image down, the 7D will have an effective FoV of 420mm versus 300mm per pixel over the 1DX.

And you clearly have never done the comparison I just asked for. Stop talking theoretical maths, it doesn't work like that, and show me some pictures that prove what you are saying.

Take a look at these first.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22399.msg429558#msg429558

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0

Then remember, my simple challenge was "Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage."

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:01:21 PM »
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

No? What about only every test out there?

7D has quite noticeably more reach than a 5D3 or 5D2. And I say that as someone who sold my 7D so I'm not some 7D owner making up justifications.

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

10
That might be true in a testing scenario, but few of us shoot in those. Factor in AF, handholding, higher than base iso, less than ideal aperture or shutter speed etc etc etc and the differences become minimal, as so many people who have owned both have attested to.

That doesn't mean there is no point to a 7D, 70D 7D MkII, as a compliment to a 6D etc one might work very well, but the resolution thing really is a red herring unless you are using a heavy tripod, 10X live view manual focus blah blah.........

What the estimates tell you is that even if you have a heavy tripod, base iso etc you will gain only a small increase in reach, and not 60%.

I've been saying that for years and practically nobody agreed with me, it is great to see the winds of change, finally.  ;)

I deliberately stayed out of the last 5D MkIII and 7D reach comparison thread, it was interesting that after ironing out some flawed methodology the same conclusions were drawn that I did a long time ago, albeit to the utter disdain and disbelief of the then only 7D owning OP.

I wonder if people will believe me on some of the other contentious stuff I say now too? I doubt it..........


11
That might be true in a testing scenario, but few of us shoot in those. Factor in AF, handholding, higher than base iso, less than ideal aperture or shutter speed etc etc etc and the differences become minimal, as so many people who have owned both have attested to.

That doesn't mean there is no point to a 7D, 70D 7D MkII, as a compliment to a 6D etc one might work very well, but the resolution thing really is a red herring unless you are using a heavy tripod, 10X live view manual focus blah blah.........

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 27, 2014, 01:39:34 PM »

I assume you are including me in the "FF snobs" comment? If so why, what do you know about my needs, current gear and the 7D MkII that I don't?

Oh I own a 1D too.


No, but you did.  But you made me read your post.  You say you have no interest in a "performance" crop body but you still own a 1D?  Incidentally, the 7D and the 1Ds Mk III were aimed at different segments.  While the 7D is better for some, the 1Ds III is better for others.  I've seen 7Ds on the sports sidelines and no 1Ds IIIs.   It's the reverse in the studio.  I have FF, APS-H, and APS-C bodies that I use in different situations.  The 1Dx would replace all 3  but at twice the cost. I don't know your needs but you don't know everyone else's either.

Like all my gear, I have a specific reason for it. The 1D is worthless to sell but a very good stop motion camera, I can, and have, left it for days taking pictures of grass growing, I'd rather put 4,000 frames on a camera I can replace for less than the shutter of my other cameras.

I have no doubt many would favour the 7D over the 1Ds MkIII, I wasn't answering for them, or the "sports shooters" you have seen with them, I was answering from my perspective because that is the one I am qualified to answer from.

I too have FF, APS-H and APS-C, I have no interest in a "performance" crop camera. The OP's question is "Are you planning to purchase a 7D2?". My answer is still that I have no interest in a performance crop camera, 100,000,000 might, but I don't.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 27, 2014, 01:03:49 PM »
Wow, FF snobs abound......everyone knows the 1D Marks I-IV are crop bodies, right?

I assume you are including me in the "FF snobs" comment? If so why, what do you know about my needs, current gear and the 7D MkII that I don't?

Oh I own a 1D too.

I found the 7D to be no better than the 1Ds MkIII cropped in actual shooting, so there was zero point in getting one. I suspect the same will be true with a 7D MkII and a 1DX MkII, so I will get the latter, again.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:57:11 PM »
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

15
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon brand UV and Circ. Polarizing filters
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:26:35 PM »
I can't find a lot of information online about these so far.  I'm looking to get 2 77mm UV filters to protect my lenses and one circular polarizer.

The Canon brand filters are more expensive than the other filters I see in my catalogs.

Are they worth it?

No.

I had to buy a Canon CPL once and it was the biggest POS I ever got, it delaminated in a matter of weeks and scratched very easily. Do not buy them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 148