February 01, 2015, 01:16:43 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 - justsomedude

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 05:12:49 PM »
Disappointments for me are...

AF system is not equal or exceeds those of the 7D Mark II
No mention of GPS
No mention of WiFi
No mention of NFC
No mention of 4K (which to me would justify it costing beyond $3,000)

I would not take the spec list as final and or Gospel; it was hocked from a Japanese camera website translated by Google translate. Probably just a sneak peek... next week should give us a full spec breakdown.

Wasn't there a "Mark II" of the Tokina 11-20mm that launched in Spring 2013?

Is this a "Mark III"?

I'm getting confused with the history/versions of this lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 05:04:09 PM »
Not excited.  ISO 6400 camera is not for me.  Where is 5D MK4?

Coming in August - according to Northlight.

EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 03:45:12 PM »
Am I bonkers for having no interest in this 5Ds business? 50MP just seems silly to me.

I'll be waiting until august to see what the 5D4 brings.

EOS Bodies / Re: Where is the EOS 5D Mark IV? [CR2]
« on: January 30, 2015, 03:35:18 PM »
I'm sure they will increase the ISO, but Dynamic Range is still lacking with this camera

I would assume this is the main reason for the delay in the 5D Mark IV. Canon must be well aware by now that they can't just drop a 5D3 with a few tweaks and a bump in ISO. They got raked over the coals by Nikon and their loyal fans with the weak DR in the 5D3.

Fingers crossed they are listening, and using the extra time to deliver a solid punch in August.

Come on, 5D4, I have high hopes for you!

However I really like the design and the quality of light from those so my suggestion is the Original Westcott Apollo.
That one also has fiberglass rods but I hope they are more durable than the Chinese copies.

I <3 the Westcott Apollo. It's definitely my favorite flash modifier... ever! Such even, soft and beautiful light. Definitely my go-to for mobile shoots where light-weight is a priority, and the monolights need to stay at home.

Just don't forget the good ol' Offset Arm from Paul Buff to make the most of your softbox. Check the nerd-video I just made for details:


EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark IV mentioned in product desciption
« on: January 08, 2015, 12:51:33 PM »

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 11:22:49 AM »

gimmeh!  8)

Software & Accessories / Re: UNBOXING: Battery Grip BG-E16 for 7D2
« on: December 06, 2014, 07:10:29 PM »
nice you talked a little too quick but it was ok so I scribed your channle

Thanks so much for the constructive criticism... I will definitrly try to improve upon that in future vids!! :)

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripods - CF or Aluminum...?
« on: December 05, 2014, 08:12:53 PM »
I also have both Al and CF tripods, and my experience with them is that the CF tripods settle down much quicker than Al ones after making adjustments to the camera.

My advice... stop bumping into your damn tripods!  ;)  :P

Honestly, Neuro's links sums it up well. Although, their summary leaves a lot to be desired:

Digging deeper, if you want a tripod which dissipates vibrations as quickly as possible, then the carbon fiber versions are again much preferred, although if you're operating in strong winds, the heavier aluminium models may have the edge. If you shoot in very cold conditions, the carbon fiber models won't become anywhere near as chilly to the touch, although leg warmers on the aluminium versions will equally make them easy to handle.

Now, you're probably thoroughly confused, but look at it in a positive light... you can't really go wrong with either.

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripods - CF or Aluminum...?
« on: December 05, 2014, 06:14:11 PM »
In terms of my usage, I do a fair amount of landscape photography currently (both wet and dry conditions) as well as other nature but I also do some portraiture and sports.  The monopod option that detaches from both would be utilized from time to time but again - they both offer this ability.  Both come with a basic ball head and both extend to about the same height.  I'm tall so it really doesn't matter - both are going to be a bit short but I'll deal with that.

After years of trial and error, I ended up getting one of each in my gear bag, and a separate monopod. FWIW, I'm not a fan of the tripods that have the detachable monopod. Monopods can be had on Craigslist/Ebay for very cheap. I got my Manfrotto monopod for $40 on Craigslist for track days. Get the right tool for the job, not a half-assed tool that kinda does everything OK.

Back to your primary question: I use my lightweight CF tripod for mobile portrait-studio/photobooth work due to its light weight, and my aluminum tripod for landscapes and startrails. Seems a bit backwards, I know, but the weight of the aluminum tripod just gives me a sturdier feel when setting up my camera, especially when it's for a 2 hr. exposure in the woods. When it comes to startrails/landscapes I want my tripod to hold my camera perfectly still; if it's at a cost of an extra couple of pounds, I'm happy with that.

Yes, the CF tripods do have a hanger hook for hanging your gearbag for extra ballast, but if you are putting your tripod in a wonky low-to-ground configuration, it may not be practical/feasible to place a massive gearbag directly underneath it. Now you're talking about packing an extra sand-bag just to hold down your CF tripod, and any weight benefit you paid for just went out the window. That's why aluminum solves all problems at once; heavy, and stable.

In my opinion, the cons to lighter-weight CF tripods (when used in the field) outweigh their benefits. Save up, get one of each. If you can only have one, go aluminum. Of course, YMMV.

Software & Accessories / UNBOXING: Battery Grip BG-E16 for 7D2
« on: December 05, 2014, 05:39:33 PM »
Just got mine in, and had to dork out with another video...


That AF area selection lever is a pretty neat add by Canon.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 01, 2014, 04:26:28 PM »

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: REVIEW: Canon 7D2 For Events? Perhaps...
« on: November 21, 2014, 11:25:46 AM »
You and Northrup find the 7DII impressive, and you're arguing that the 7DII's IQ is as good as the camera Northrup suggested might be ok for non-pros posting images to Facebook.  Impressive, indeed.   ::) 

I guess I don't understand the point of your post. I never argued the 7DII to be "better" than anything. I simply state, for low-light work, where some photographers crop images to get a desired composition, the 7D2 will provide you with similar performance (at certain ISOs), and double the megapixels. "Similar" to me, is what I'm impressed by. I'm not looking for a 1Dx, but if I can squeeze out 4, 6, or 8 MP from an image I'd normally have to crop, with minimal degradation due to noise, I'm pretty darned satisfied.

PS: Not sure about your AF tracking comment about some one walking on stage. Whether it's a presenter, a drummer, or a guitarist jumping off a speaker stack, I'm not relying on AI tracking, I always use single-point and focus each shot individually. I've just never found AI to be reliable in lecture/concert halls. Maybe that's a difference in our own techniques. But for what it's worth, the keeper shots on the 7D2 were higher than that on my 5D3. I put that down to the dual-pixel AF, though, more than anything else. The 5D3 certainly holds up when it come to AF, but the 7D2's AF in low-light seems to be on another level entirely, at least when it comes to consistency/repeat-ability.

I can see why some people don't find this to be interesting or groundbreaking, especially those who'd rather carry a 400mm lens and stick to full frame. For my clients (whether they be presenters, musicians, whoever) who sometimes prefer a larger file to a smaller one, the 7DII does it's job. It's a tool for a certain job, and it does that job well.

For the kind of running around I do at venues, I'd prefer to shoot a 7D2 with a 70-200mm, than a 5D3 with a 400mm lens. It's just a matter of practicality. But that's horses of course.

Thanks for your feedback, Neuro.

Agree with what has been said so far in response to the comparison; this is not a valid test - unless you are aiming to show the 7DII is better.

1: As has been said, the 24-105L at 100mm and f4.5 does not have the same sharpness and contrast as the 70-200ii f2.8 at 100mm at f2.8.

2: You shot the 5DIII at ISO 3200 at 1/125 with a focal length of 100mm, so at best for critical sharpness you were probably dependant on the efficiency of the image stabilisation. You shot the 7DII at ISO 2500 at 1/250 at 100mm, so much less dependant on the IS.

3: You shot the 5DIII at f4.5, the 7DII at f2.8 in relatively dim light, so the 7DII had over twice the (volume) of light reaching the sensor than (the crop area of ) the 5DIII. ( Bearing in mind exposure is calculated on light density, not quantity).

These three points are why you obtained the result you did.

1. I disagree that the 24-105 f/4.5L is any less sharp than the 70-200 f2.8L (Mark I) at 100mm. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

2 & 3. And yes, in my initial post I noted that I would have preferred to compare the same lenses side by side, with the same settings. This was more of an "after the fact" attempt to compare images, as I wasnt planning this review during the shoot. In a next step, I will definitely be comparing the same lenses with the same camera settings.

Thanks for the input! It definitely helps with future videos and reviews, so I can provide better data.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: REVIEW: Canon 7D2 For Events? Perhaps...
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:43:07 AM »
What you are saying is the same area of a sensor from a current crop camera is the same as the same cropped area from a three year old ff camera, that doesn't sound good at all. It sounds like there has been no improvement in actual sensor output, on a per area basis, for another three years.

But this is where you're mistaken, it's not a "per area" basis, it's a "per pixel" basis. Comparing the "same area" of a 5D3 with 10 megapixels, to 20 megapixels on the same sensor three years later, to me, is mighty impressive. Remember, this isn't about area, this is about sensor efficiency.

This is why I implore all "photonerds" to really watch Tony's video. He explains why sensor efficiency is so important, and just how impressive the 7D2 really is, given how many (smaller) pixels they've crammed into such a tiny area.


Remember. The 7D has almost the same amount of pixels as the 5D3, in just about half the area!!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26