November 21, 2014, 01:03:10 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 - jaayres20

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Even if a mirrorless camera had the same great AF performance I would not buy one because it is too small.  How am I supposed to wear one of those little cameras hanging off of my shoulder with a flash attached and a large lens like my 70-200 or 200mm for extended periods of time and not break the camera?  I need a camera that feels good with big gear.  Frankly it can't see a mirrorless having the same AF performance at a high frame rate for a long while yet.  We are supposed to overlook a lot of inconveniences with this sony just so we can get a little better IQ via more DR at base ISO.   

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:59:55 AM »

That's exactly what DxO does.  They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,


Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.

I think you have that a little backwards.  I can definitely get around not having a little better DR at ISO 100, but I it is a little tougher for me to make up for less AF points, speed, or accuracy.  I also love the color Canon gives me.

3
Lenses / Re: A Couple of Real World EOS 7D Mark II High ISO Samples
« on: November 04, 2014, 04:57:11 PM »
"SARCASM" (def) - a swift bird that often flies over ones head.


Quote
If it had a sony sensor you wouldn't need 16,000 ISO.  You could just keep all your shots at 100 and then fix everything in post.  I can't believe that anyone would even buy a Canon camera anymore.


It's even worse to post some comments on a website dedicated to Canon gear and don't use Canon gear, i really don't understand 8)

Yes just to be clear I was being VERY sarcastic with my original post!

4
Lenses / Re: A Couple of Real World EOS 7D Mark II High ISO Samples
« on: November 04, 2014, 08:53:01 AM »
If it had a sony sensor you wouldn't need 16,000 ISO.  You could just keep all your shots at 100 and then fix everything in post.  I can't believe that anyone would even buy a Canon camera anymore. 

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:41:09 AM »
You all seem to be making the same mistake.... You are confusing an in-depth review with advertising...... This is advertising.... Of course it is fluff and no critical information.....

Some very critical info I gathered from the review:
-Great buffer
-AF almost as fast as the 1DX
-AF points very near the edge of the sensor
-Amazing ISO performance for a crop sensor
-Scott Kelby doesn't care as much about DR as everyone else on this fourm!

6
EOS Bodies / Re: B&H Photo Hands-On With the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 08, 2014, 09:58:08 PM »
It looks like an amazing camera.  Almost makes me want to shoot sports and wildlife so I could have an excuse to buy one. 

7
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 08, 2014, 11:39:11 AM »
This is amazing to me.  The camera is $1,700 and is the best (so far) 1.6 crop sensor camera available.  Why is everyone hating so bad on Canon about this?  And I am so tired about hearing about low ISO DR.  It is a factor in so few scenarios and is sad really that it is the focus of almost every complaint about Canon now.

Forbid there be some noise in the crop sensor.  I mean the ISO 16,000 image looked very usable to me.  I don't even shoot above 12,800 on my 1DX, and have very rarely ever needed to.   

I definitely liked the part where he mocked the DR question and stated that if you were to show up at a pro NFL game with a sony camera you would need to fear for your safety. 

There is a reason why a majority of pro sports shooters use Canon and it isn't because they are concerned about low ISO DR and I guarantee they can do a little better than 60% of the shots in focus. 

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 09:11:50 AM »
Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer.  Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose.  Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong.  This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

Speaking of a lack of critical thought...when the light is so very low, do you usually find yourself shooting action at ISO 100?  At ISO 400?  Or have you raised your ISO higher than that...where the differences between Canon and Exmor sensors have evaporated (or the Canon sensor has the advantage)?  (BTW, I trust someone so knowledgable as yourself won't bother bringing up the a7S in the context of sports/action).

Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.

The IQ isn't better unless you need a lot of extra DR at low ISO, which is hardly necessary for most photographers.  And for that extra DR you are trading for a camera that is still lesser in a lot of areas than the more than two year older Canon.  And what about lenses?  Also a better flash system.  Does this new Nikon have a better AF system than the past, or is it the same 51 point and less than 20 cross type sensors?

"Most photographers". I love that term. How do you know what "most photographers" need? Have you surveyed them?

Unfortunately flickr doesn't do ranking on ISO (and nor will Google be able to do search results for that either.) However I suspect that there will be more pictures rated ISO 100-400 than there are at (say) 1600-6400.

Yes "most photographers" expose correctly no matter the ISO.  My 1DX or 5D3 ISO 100 images will have the same great IQ (but better colors IMO) as the Nikon because it is exposed correctly and captures all the DR I need.  And most photographers do the same.  It is a rare case that I need more DR and would not sacrifice any of the other features the Canon excels at for a little extra low ISO DR latitude.  That is the only noticeable benefit of the Sony sensor.   

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 07:15:03 AM »
Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer.  Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose.  Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong.  This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

Speaking of a lack of critical thought...when the light is so very low, do you usually find yourself shooting action at ISO 100?  At ISO 400?  Or have you raised your ISO higher than that...where the differences between Canon and Exmor sensors have evaporated (or the Canon sensor has the advantage)?  (BTW, I trust someone so knowledgable as yourself won't bother bringing up the a7S in the context of sports/action).

Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.

The IQ isn't better unless you need a lot of extra DR at low ISO, which is hardly necessary for most photographers.  And for that extra DR you are trading for a camera that is still lesser in a lot of areas than the more than two year older Canon.  And what about lenses?  Also a better flash system.  Does this new Nikon have a better AF system than the past, or is it the same 51 point and less than 20 cross type sensors? 

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 10:10:35 PM »
Something is not right with his 5D3 example pushed 5 stops.  I have a 1DX which is very similar and I did a test that doesn't look near as bad as his example.  It isn't good, but it is as good as you could expect with a drastically underexposed image at 1/13 handheld. 

11
EOS Bodies / Re: More Talk of an October Announcement of a DSLR [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2014, 06:41:13 PM »
This is so funny to read.  I have a 5D3 and a 1DX and there isn't a Nikon wedding photographer out there that has better IQ in their images.  This all over a little DR in low ISOs.  I have printed off prints from my 1DX that are 50 inches and they look great.  What if Canon comes out with this high MP camera and much improved DR, is everyone going to come rushing back to Canon?  All of this because of DR and more MPs so you can print billboards or corop down half of you picture.  The D810 has been out for how long now?

Let's just say that you were entering the wedding photography scene today.  Which system would you buy, Canon or Nikon?

It sounds like you're admitting that there is a slight difference??  The problem is that this noticeable IQ gap just continues to widen and Canon is either unable or unwilling to try and catch up.  Wedding photography is just one application to photography.  I'm a photojournalist and DR and ISO are crucial to my work. 

People like myself are tired of waiting for that "what if Canon comes out with a high MP camera and much improved DR" question to materialize.  A 1.6 crop factor 7D MII is Canon's big announcement of the year??  Really?  It seems that Canon have forgotten their professional market.  If I could get a decent price for my Canon gear, I would sell it and make the jump to Nikon today.

Well I have over 25 grand in gear so that is hard to ever ponder. If I had to start over I would choose Canon. I have had several Nikon second shooters so I have seen hundreds of their raw files. The only thing I can give Nikon is low ISO DR. It is much easier to recover the blown out highlights in a wedding dress for an over exposed image. But of the 1000s of pictures I take a year I can only come up with a few times I would need that extra DR. At ISO 1600 or above (where most of the wedding is shot) there is no DR advantage. High ISO is a tie, Canon has much better colors (I much prefer the skin tones from Canon), and Canon has better AF.

Canon also has great perfesional services and there are more lens options, better lenses and better availability. You say wedding photography is only one aspect of photography but it covers just about everything.  Macro, arcitexture & Landscape, fashion and portraits, studio, action, and especially photojournalim in very tricky low light. Weddings really push a cameras capabilities.

So why would I change to Nikon for a little low ISO DR that I rarlely need?  And for photojurnalist like yourself you are at high ISOs which doesn't have any DR advantage. Also why do you need more MPs for photojurnalism?

12
EOS Bodies / Re: More Talk of an October Announcement of a DSLR [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2014, 05:04:57 PM »
This is so funny to read.  I have a 5D3 and a 1DX and there isn't a Nikon wedding photographer out there that has better IQ in their images.  This all over a little DR in low ISOs.  I have printed off prints from my 1DX that are 50 inches and they look great.  What if Canon comes out with this high MP camera and much improved DR, is everyone going to come rushing back to Canon?  All of this because of DR and more MPs so you can print billboards or corop down half of you picture.  The D810 has been out for how long now?

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs D4s
« on: September 09, 2014, 03:18:50 PM »
Excellent.  Just what we need.  Another Canon vs Nikon thread.

And it even chucks in DxO ratings and DR.

It really has got everything...

This thread needs more Ken Rockwell  ;)

My bad, you are right too much Canon talk around here.  Not enough sarcasm though, thanks for adding a little more :)

Sorry for the a-hole response, I guess should have a little thicker skin.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs D4s
« on: September 09, 2014, 02:16:23 PM »
Excellent.  Just what we need.  Another Canon vs Nikon thread.

And it even chucks in DxO ratings and DR.

It really has got everything...

This thread needs more Ken Rockwell  ;)

My bad, you are right too much Canon talk around here.  Not enough sarcasm though, thanks for adding a little more :)

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 1DX vs D4s
« on: September 09, 2014, 11:56:58 AM »
I have to admit I only shoot Canon and this is probably pointless but I wanted so say it anyway.  I also have a 1DX and love it.  I am a wedding photographer and all of my favorite photographers love Nikon and talk about how awesome their D4s cameras are.  I read in reviews that the D4s beats the 1Dx hands down.  The 1DX loses to Nikon by 7 points in a sensor test on the DOX website.  After reading about them I have a couple of observations.

The 1DX has more MPs
The 1Dx has a higher fps
The 1Dx has a better viewfinder
The 1DX has a better, faster, more accurate AF system

Now the D4s is supposedly better in all areas related to the sensor, especially DR, but here are some quotes from DOX website, "As for the much-vaunted dynamic range the Nikon D4s has an extra 1.5 stops at base over the Canon EOS-1D X but that advantage is eroded at higher ISOs and there’s nothing in it by ISO 1600....The Nikon D4S sensor may have a wider dynamic range and better color discrimination than the Canon EOS-1D X but the gulf between the two sensors is less than you might think, and that’s certainly the case with noise levels....The upshot is the Nikon has better low-light performance overall, but even then it’s really only a slight advantage when using raw, and may not be visible at all with out-of-camera Jpegs...the Nikon D4s is ahead of the Canon EOS 1D X, but in reality the two are closely matched and that applies as much to the technical spec’ as anything else... in the right hands both cameras produce results that would be difficult to tell apart.

So the D4s is a "better" camera because of the sensor, which is, in all reality, so little better that most won't be able to tell the difference, but it doesn't get any credit for better AF, more MP and a higher frame rate?  Also it is 2 years older than the D4s. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8