April 21, 2014, 03:32:01 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 - Razor2012

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 43
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: November 01, 2012, 02:16:28 PM »
Actually, Nikon can start (re)naming their cameras as DXO4, DXO800 etc.
LOL! That's a good one.

Ironically, Nikon's DX are trouncing Canon's flagship 1DX in DXO. My head hurts.

The only thing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: November 01, 2012, 11:37:06 AM »
Heh, you ever keep track of how many new users join just to troll?  Just look at Coke & Pepsi, who's always bashing who there?  If you're number one your always in the hot seat.  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 05:41:45 PM »
at 500 px even my old casio looks good.  ;)

it´s not that it´s not good enough.. it´s normal to want the BEST for your money.

so you see what you pay and you see the DXO score.... and then you look at nikon.

of course the DXO score does not tell you about the whole camera... just the sensor.

You're preachin to the choir here... but some people don't want to listen.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 05:39:41 PM »
Forget the scores.

I shot all of these college football photos at ISO 8,000, f/2.8, 1/1,250 sec on my 1DX.

High school stadiums are usually much worse. The night shots in this gallery were at ISO 16,000, 1/640-1/800 sec, f/2.8.

Sorry about the compression but our website is a little behind the times. Anyway I love the 1DX and everything it does. I don't touch the 1D MK IV anymore but still keep my 5D MK II for wide angles below ISO 3,200.

Lol, how can we forget the scores when that seems to be the only thing that matters?  Nice shots, what lens were you using? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 03:31:33 PM »
I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.

No one likes to be on the losing end, and if anything, this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up since Sony sensors are kicking their Butt, on both the stills and the video end. Since I'm more on the video end, not sure if you guys heard about the new Sony F5, close in price to the Canon C300, but about 5x the camera. The C300 is not even remotely in the same league.

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts. Fortunately, they can ride on their name for a while, but soon, people will expect results.

It's true...in regards to sensors.  I wonder if the Nikon camp complains about AF & ISO or FPS?  Canon will eventually have better sensors, and Nikon will eventually have better AF.  So really, depending on what your priorities are, is there really a bad choice?  No.  In the real world I would sooner have not missed a shot and have it in-focus rather than more DR.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 02:42:48 PM »
a little "real" life use...

Exactly.  So would you want a camera that has better DR, or one that has better AF, ISO & FPS?  We're talking real life use here.  I personally would take the latter.  All the DR in the world isn't going to matter if you miss the pic or it's OOF.   ;)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2012, 06:13:13 PM »
Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

I'd prefer IS with a 2.8 rather than with a F4.

Software & Accessories / Re: Need great Photo editing monitor
« on: October 25, 2012, 06:03:10 PM »
I have to admit the Retina screen on my Macbook Pro 15" is incredible.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 25, 2012, 12:44:35 PM »
I think there's a trade off for everything.  For example take records & CD's.  Those old analog records sounded great and when CD's first entered the scene I thought they sounded crappy.  As time went on and as tech progressed, CD's sounded better.  In regards to film & digital, it's kind of the same thing.  Digital was very convenient at first as you didn't have to worry about taking bad pics, you just deleted them.  You didn't have to run and get them developed after 24 exposures.  Digital is getting better and better all the time.

Software & Accessories / Re: Need great Photo editing monitor
« on: October 25, 2012, 12:32:56 PM »
I agree, if a person made a living off of pro graphics then yes.  But for a grand it was all I needed at the time.

I'm soooo ticked off right now. I paid $2899 fro Beach Camera for the 5D3 a few weeks ago, and if I had only waited I could have gotten it for $2799.  According to my calculations (e=mcsquared pi=3.14 etc etc) I paid an extra .50 per actuation. Darn darn darn!


Heh, well I paid $3449.  It is what it is.   ;)

Software & Accessories / Re: Need great Photo editing monitor
« on: October 25, 2012, 11:07:51 AM »
Dells are junk. Avoid them at all costs.

I am also curious as why you would say this.
I'm another satisfied Ultrasharp user.

Would not call them junk, they are good value IPS panel, if you do not want to spend a fortune on a super pro monitor, then why not ?

I work both a Dell 2709W (PVA) and a NEC  NEC PA271W (IPS). The most obvious difference is the resolution (1920 vs 2560); yes the electronics and colour fidelity are better on the NEC, but I got the DELL for 500 Euro while the NEC is 1000 Euro, so for the price, it's very decent. Though the finer pitch on the NEC shows more appealing images, the 16/9 format is clearly a step back from the 16/10 of the DELL.

If you have space on your desk, and are on a budget, the DELL 30 inches might be an option. If you want absolute professional quality, then go for a NEC spectraView 30 inches or the Quato Intelli Proof 300 excellence.

IMO, 16/9 format is not a good ratio for photography, hence I am advising 30 inches screens for a more comfortable 16/10. My next screen will be for sure a 30 inches.

30" is sure a nice viewing size and for the same price as the 27", I couldn't go wrong.

Software & Accessories / Re: Need great Photo editing monitor
« on: October 25, 2012, 10:43:11 AM »
I picked up the Dell Ultrasharp U3011, it's a 30" monitor with a res of 2560x1600.  Check out the specs on Dell's site.

+1 for the Dell Ultrasharps!

They are IPS panels at fair prices.  I use the U2410 and couldn't be more happy.  Print colors are a perfect match.

Yep, they were rated I think #1 last year.  At first I was wanting to get the 27", but I lucked out because when I was looking online there was a one day sale where the 30" was the same price as the 27".  Done deal.

Dell 27 "is a good display but lacks the color accuracy of the best screens, and  you can not  easily calibrate the hard ware and profile as you can do with Eizo CG  and others pre press monitors

Here is a link to the best test center regarding monitors  http://www.flatpanelshd.com/reviews.php

and rec monitors photo http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1229341472

As per your link, Dell is in that list of recommended graphics/photography monitors and is in 4 of the 9 spots.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III - CF card or speed issue...
« on: October 24, 2012, 05:37:44 PM »
I don't for the life of me understand why Canon designed and released a camera the caliber of the 5D3 without a UHS-1 high speed SD slot.  Totally unacceptable for a camera that will otherwise still be relevant in all other ways for the next 3-5 years.

So you have to wonder, who benefits from this?  CF media?  A small inconvenience to help Canon sell another camera upgrade in the future?  It just doesn't make much sense.  Does Canon really secretly hate SD and thinks that UHS-1 performs so poorly that they don't want people using it when CF already works so well?  Oh, but wait!  The 6D will have a UHS-1 slot.  Hmm.  Will this help give the 6D a little more acceptance for those who can't afford the 5D3?

Oh forget it.  I'm getting a headache.  Where's that liquour cabinet key again?

I would of preferred 2 CF cards in the 5DIII, but I guess that's why there's the 1DX.

Look how much you've missed in the meantime.

But that's the question: How much would you have *really* missed with a 5d2? Sure, if you do sports then it's a no-brainer, but for many other applications is hard to say - 5d2 + another $1300 L lens or a 5d3?

Lol you pulled one line out of my quote which was meant to be about my views on retirement.  Your question about the 5DII vs the 5DIII is a totally different ball of wax.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 43