March 01, 2015, 06:40:48 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 - justsomedude

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27
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.

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!!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: REVIEW: Canon 7D2 For Events? Perhaps...
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:22:44 AM »
I didn't watch the video. 

Ding ding ding!

If you're suggesting that image noise of a 7DII image and a 5DIII image with same lens/distance cropped to APS-C FoV are similar, ok. 

Ding ding ding!

But don't just take my word for it...

Like I said in my video, with NR and sharpening applied in post, you can get very clean high ISO images that are on par with the 5D3. As Northrup also explains, out of camera RAW noise is certainly worse on the 7D2. But I'm not arguing that anyone should be delivering unedited RAW files to their clients, either.

But, this discussion demonstrates my entire point... the fact that a crop sensor is approaching three year old full-frame sensor performance, to me, is mind blowing.

Perhaps I'm easily amused.  ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: REVIEW: Canon 7D2 For Events? Perhaps...
« on: November 20, 2014, 09:55:33 PM »
Watched the video.
So what you are telling me is that the 7D2 with the right lens (at 100mm) is better than the 5D3 (with the wrong lens) at a similar focal length. Sorry that didn't blow my socks off. Much as I like my 24-105 F4 it is not going to produce the same results as a 70-200 F2.8 Mk2 or my Mk1 for that matter. Naturally the 7D2 has a narrower field of view and more, smaller, pixels on target - so what? Is its high iso as good? When the correct lens is used is it's resolution as good?

It's not about wrong lens or right lens - just selecting the proper tools for the conditions. The crop factor of the 7D2 can give you extra reach, if/when you need it. From what I can see, the higher ISOs are clearly as good as the 5D3.

I shoot a lot of low light events, where I am 100-200 feet away from the subjects I need to photograph. In the past, I would have used a 5D3 with a 70-200, and cropped my final shots to get the desired composition. Mainly because I don't think a 300 or 400mm lens is appropriate or practical for events; and now the 7D2 provides a suitable alternative.

With the 7D2 and a 70-200mm lens, I can get 360mm framing with 5D3 ISO performance in a lightweight package.

Pretty hard to beat! Of course, YMMV.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:01:39 PM »
Sorry it didn't work out for you and your needs but I'm very happy with the results that I have been getting.

Sick shot!!!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: REVIEW: Canon 7D2 For Events? Perhaps...
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:00:34 PM »
Oops... please move this to the "Reviews" forum.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / REVIEW: Canon 7D2 For Events? Perhaps...
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:41:53 PM »
I do a lot of event photography here in Denver; pretty much anything from conventions, conferences and lectures, to music and concerts, and everything in between. I know some people have been un-thrilled with the detail the 7D2 gives them in their bird/wildlife photography, but oddly enough, I think the 7D2 is a perfect companion to a 5D3 for events.

The ISOs and the extra reach (especially when you're forced to shoot from the back of a room), are incredible. I essentially got double the megapixels from the 7D2 (compared to the 5D3).

Here's a quick review and image comparo of an event I photographed last week.

PS: For those wondering why I picked 100mm as my point of comparison... I would've much preferred to compare 200mm between the 5D3 and 7D2, I just don't have two 70-200 lenses! Also, the room just wasn't big enough to justify 200mm on the 7D2, but hopefully, you get the point about cropping (images) vs. reach.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:12:41 PM »
In response to the replies, yes this is basically my dumb.  I had owned the original 7D and had similar problems with it, but I had too much hope that this was a much better step forward.  I seized on several positive reviews despite my own better initial judgment.

The sample image was mainly intended to show that I do in fact own the camera and am not a troll. :) The problem images will go in the delete pile...

Funny, I just did a video review of why I think the 7D2 is almost better suited for events when extra reach is needed, not birds/wildlife and detail. I can see where lack of clarity would be infuriating.

EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:53:22 PM »
And that's IF they have a replacement camera on hand to send right away.

They do. He said he's getting one over-nighted from Adorama.

EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 08, 2014, 01:06:13 PM »
I wouldn't have hesitated, but then your experience is identical to mine with the original 7D.  Let's hope your replacement is much better.

Don't get me started on the original 7D. You can probably find my 4 year old posts in here somewhere, ranting about how awful my experience was.

It gives me palpitations just thinking about it.

Killer video - thanks for posting!

EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 07, 2014, 01:14:24 PM »
FYI, I'd not recommend focusing on the zero marker after assembling the linked chart, for the reason above (the camera doesn't know which of the horizontal lines under the AF point you mean). 

Thanks for the correction!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27