October 30, 2014, 03:13:29 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 134
1591
Canon General / Re: What is ISO in digital terms?
« on: November 16, 2011, 05:23:02 PM »
ISO changes the signal amplification and sensitivity of the pixels on the sensor changing exposure speeds... Same as film...

1592
Canon General / Re: What is ISO in digital terms?
« on: November 16, 2011, 05:10:30 PM »
ISO is from the International Standards Organization (or also known as International Organization of Standards).  In photography terms, it's an industry wide standardized measurement of sensitivity.  Short answer, it relates with film... long answer it's a little more dicey... In the film days, film was pretty spot on regarding speed however it was a good idea to buy a "brick" of film or a lot of film from the same batch and company.  You would test the first roll and then use those tests to relate to the rest of the brick.  Also you tested the lenses with leaf shutters because sometimes the springs would weaken and 1/50 maybe 1/30...

Leap ahead a decade or two and you're in the digital age with electronic shutters and sensors amplifying the signal match the ISO requirements... I read a while ago and cant find it on google, but there was an article with a title like "when ISO 100 isn't ISO 100" or something like that... Dx0 takes the cameras and reads the measurements of each camera's ISO's and points out EXACTLY where that ISO really is... sometimes the ISO's are right on (especially on the lower ISO) but towards the high end they may be a full stop off, which will affect your exposures... If you find it or anyone else knows what article I'm talking about please post it because it was rather interesting... 

So yeah... for the most part, ISO's SHOULD relate to film, however there are minor nuances you may want to look into for your specific camera.  In regards to exposure, ISO should be the same. 

1593
Lenses / Re: ? on why Canon ignored...
« on: November 16, 2011, 03:32:14 PM »
I do not see why you chose to attack my post and call me ignorant for something that I did not even say.

If you feel I wrongly targeted you regarding your posts, then I do appologise, however within this forum I've had several heated discussions with those whom have the opinion that anything less than a 1d camera is not worthy, and they couldn't get good images with anything else BUT a 1d body... This was a similar impression I gathered from your dismissal of the 7d that it was inferior, case closed...

I've always had/have the POV that if someone cannot get a certain image because you do not have a 1D series camera, then there's more to it than just the camera... That being said, Just me, personally, because I live and die by my cameras and equipment, I dont even spend time looking at the 1d cameras because it does me no good... I prefer to hone my skills more and make sure I can get the shots I need with what I have then obsessing about cameras I dont need to get my job done. 

1594
Lenses / Re: ? on why Canon ignored...
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:51:34 PM »
The 7D is NOT a small 1D. It is a clearly inferior camera aimed at a very different market.

Clearly, the 7d is an inferior camera... ummmm yep... sounds right to me... <Sarcasm>  The 5d2 was always seen as a baby 1ds and the 7d has had a reputation of a baby 1d. 

Is the Camry a 'baby Lexus LS'?  I'm with EYEONE on this - the 7D is an inferior camera, and it's aimed at a different market.  The 1D series has substantially better build quality, durability, AF, IQ, etc.  That's not to say that the 7D is not a great camera, nor that's it's not a better choice in many situations.

While I'm not too surprised to hear you take that stance, from a professional photographers POV, they are just tools... There are times when a 1d body is beneficial but there are professionals who have made great works of art or utilize Point and Shoots because of the fact that it's small and light and doesn't draw attention.  To be honest I've never lost a shot because I didn't have a 1d body, nor have I failed to get a job done because I didn't have a 1d body... Yes there may be times when having 1 comes in handy, and that's why I have CPS, but to be honest, haven't come to that point.  Heck, even national geographic staff photogs use 5d's... I would class them more professional than most...

1595
Lenses / Re: ? on why Canon ignored...
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:17:02 PM »
It wouldn't make much sense to stick a 2k piece of glass on a $300 body.

Really?  Which would give you a better result - a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on a T3, or a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III on a 5DII?  There's a reason for the 'glass before body' maxim.

Lest we forget the rule of thumb was always to spend 2x the ammount on glass than the body because that's really what will determine the quality of the image... nice comparison btw. 

1596
Lenses / Re: ? on why Canon ignored...
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:05:54 PM »
The 7D is NOT a small 1D. It is a clearly inferior camera aimed at a very different market.

There are so many arguments against what you just said...

But anyway, I believe a qualification of an L-Series lens is that it has to work on every EOS camera. An L-Series EF-S lens would not mount on a EOS film camera. Case closed.

I wanted sooo much to bite my tongue on this comment however I cant... AFTERALL, Clearly, the 7d is an inferior camera... ummmm yep... sounds right to me... <Sarcasm>  The 5d2 was always seen as a baby 1ds and the 7d has had a reputation of a baby 1d.  This is the point the original poster was referring to... Does the 7D have the quantity of AF points of a 1D, no.  Does the 7D have the built in grip and imposing size? no.  Does it have audio recording or the 1.3 sensor?  No.  That being said, it's smaller and more versatile and may get into venues up probably couldn't get into with the 1d without a press credential.  The 7D is weathersealed and tough... It has an overall AF system that leaves 5d2 only owner envious, or even nikon D300 owners... From a pro who's used both, both are fine cameras and both have their rightful place in the lineup and markets... To dismiss the 7d so flippantly hints at your ignorance.  Once again professional photographers are able to make the most out of their gear to meet their clients needs. 

1597
Lenses / Re: ? on why Canon ignored...
« on: November 16, 2011, 01:38:24 PM »
@JR

positioning could very well be a huge factor and Canon may think 1.6 crop is only for families and trips to disneyland, but then why even bother making the 7D? kind of pointless without lenses to match in quality.

I do believe up until maybe 3 years ago Canon probably did believe that the 1.6 crop was a "lesser" camera system and wanted to nudge people up the food chain up to full frame... The EF-S system was catered to the 20D and beyond and were geared for that clientele.  I think when the 7D was introduced they realized people who were invested in the EF-s system (and frankly those who weren't going to buy a $2500 camera period) needed something to upgrade to and so the 7D was born... Somehow I almost dont think Canon realized how big of a hit the 7D really was.  While I would be supprised to see some L-s versions in the future or some other designation for top of the line ef-s series, that probably wouldn't be introduced until after the 7D2 comes out so there's enough of a saturation in the market of APS-C weathersealed 7d cameras out there to match up with the lenses. 

@neuroanatomist

professional only means paid my friend and has no bearing of skill.... with that, I dont get paid but still consider pro equipment a necessity and the 7D to me is the smallest "1D" Cannon makes. Furthermore, if apple engineers can make something like the ipad, is there really a need for the 1D to be as big as it is anymore???


Correct, being a professional photographer means you are a paid or commissioned photographer... I make all my living off of photography and my skill set, however I do not use 1d series cameras...  That being said, if I was in the position or need for that type of camera for the style of photography I was shooting or shooting for a client whom this gear was needed, then by all means I would have it in my budget to get one.  There are professional photographers can make money whether they are using a 1Ds/x or an iphone... It's all about knowing what equipment you need to get your job done and most importantly knowing how to get the most out of what gear you have to get the job done.   

1598
Lenses / Re: Best place to sell used gear?
« on: November 15, 2011, 12:48:33 PM »
The 28-135 was bundled with the 7D? How horrid. What an inappropriate lens for that camera. IMO, the 28-135 has no place in Canon's digital lineup, either crop or full frame.

I first tried the 28-135 on my 10D way back when and hated it then... then I've used a 28-135 on a 50D... made me want to cry... That lens just isn't that good... even the 15-85 and 18-135 have much better MTF charts...

1599
Lenses / Re: Best place to sell used gear?
« on: November 15, 2011, 11:07:19 AM »
Thanks everyone for all the feedback--what a great source for information!   :)

I've done a fair amount of selling and buying on ebay and have had very good results.  In fact I sold all my film gear years ago via ebay and I got about 80% of what I paid for it back in the day (most of it went to Asia) .  I'll have to investigate Craig's list.  If I'm understanding Craig's list correctly, I'm somewhat restricted to selling only to my geographical area since it is in person seller to buyer exchange.  I live in metro Phoenix so I should have a decent market to work with if I end up going this route.

Now I've got to finalize my replacement lens choice.   :-\

You would be surprised when a buyer wants something, they check multiple cities listings... I live in northern nevada and bought stuff from sacramento's and san fran's craigslists in the past when I needed an item... Plus when people run searches on google, other cities Craigslist postings pop up... Just use common sense when responding to buyers... I used ebay a few times in the past but you have to pay for listings, pay fee's once they sell, if they sell, and then wait on baited breath that the item arrives to the buyer safely and the buyer is happy... One time a buyer claimed an item arrived damaged in transit... Thankfully I always take out insurance on shipping and I just gave them the insurance number so they can file a claim.  The second time they claimed there was a scratch on the extended barrel of the lens and refused to leave good feedback (there wasn't when I inspected it prior to shipping)... Craigslist may take a few listings to list if you live in a small market, but typically the buyer can see it, test it, fall in love with it and that's it... no post selling drama...

1600
Lenses / Re: Best place to sell used gear?
« on: November 14, 2011, 04:29:09 PM »
+1 craigslist... no listing fee's (in my area at least) and like neuro said, face to face, they can test it before leaving with it, and less likey they try to come after you later for a refund if they're dissatisfied such as people do on ebay. 

1601
Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 12, 2011, 12:32:52 PM »
How about this... this camera (the 7D) is a 2 year old beast and the sony is a few months old... in a year or two when Canon pumps out the 7D2 and the 7D2 all of a sudden boasts a much superior sensor in every way as you suggest it is currently in favor of sony, would we then rip sony apart as people are so willing to do now for Canon?  Frankly this arguement comparison is boring to me and if Sony's offerings are good enough to cause a switch or make others to switch, more power to them... This is a leap frogging game and to freeze frame anything at any one time saying such company if superior because of it is frankly a waste of time and breath. 

1602
Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 12, 2011, 12:04:18 PM »
I'm not comparing the cameras. The argument was made that anyone who was interested in IQ would not own a crop sensor with 24MP. I'm merely saying that this is not true and that people who are interested in excellent IQ are also interested in "pixel crammed 24MP sensors."

The arguement was anyone who would buy the sony JUST BECAUSE of the number specs wasn't as interested in IQ... lets be honest here... I've known people who buy that top of the line cameras for no other reason but to say they own the top level cameras (more of bragging rights or a p*nis extension) whereas a regular camera would suit them just as well... There's other things that come into play which few people bring up... we all know with higher MP cameras, the image quality becomes beleaguered even more by lenses... Sony lenses vs Canon lenses... mmmmm  you'll have to argue that one mate... 

1603
Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 12, 2011, 10:16:20 AM »
Tempting but people who get excited about this camera in my estimations are pure number people and not as concerned about quality... Crap in, and crap out... I need my photos to look stunning in print, and if i cant count on it in print, what else is there for me to get excited about?

The principal behind the Luminous Landscape website seems to be fairly excited about the A77 and that's someone that owns and uses an 80MP MF back. Are you saying that someone who shoots professionally with an 80MP MF back is not concerned about IQ?


Dilbert my friend, surely you know the difference between a 80mp medium format sensor and a pixel crammed 24mp crop sensor. Surely you understand how much bigger of a sensor that is compared to even a 35mm sensor. Come on, comparing mf 645 or 67 to a crop sensor is not apples to oranges, it's like apples to watermelons  :P

It's not neccisarily the size of the sensor or the total pixels in the sensor, it's the technology and quality of info pumped out by said sensor. This is where the canon cameras tend to shine in comparison to Sony. Now canon compared to 80mp medium format.... That's a whole new ball of wax

1604
Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 11, 2011, 08:54:30 PM »

At 24MP, the A77 has the most MP for a "current" camera that's actually affordable.


Not true. My 7D has more megapixels. The trick is to take a photo and then in Photoshop, enlarge it to 200% and voila !!! more than 70 MPs  :o :o :o

I mean, since we don't care about "pixel quality" and "sensor noise", what's the difference, right?

Well played good sir, well played

1605
Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 11, 2011, 05:23:23 PM »
Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the A77 a crop body?  Also comparing image quality of the 7d OR the 5d2 compared to sony's offering...  EHhh... i'll pass.  Tempting but people who get excited about this camera in my estimations are pure number people and not as concerned about quality... Crap in, and crap out... I need my photos to look stunning in print, and if i cant count on it in print, what else is there for me to get excited about?

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 134