Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX Image Quality

« on: June 18, 2013, 11:28:00 PM »

You're kidding right?  This is probably the highest IQ camera I've ever owned.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 17, 2013, 12:06:30 AM »

I see.  So like a 1Dx/(High MP body) to Canon as is the D4/D800 to Nikon.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk III with 50mm f/1.8 II - bad images?

« on: June 15, 2013, 04:11:12 PM »

Lighting can make or break you.  I was having a grand time at the Big Ten track meet, bright sunny day, then suddenly a big cold front moved in and it started misting/raining and got really dark.  Even with a 1Dx and 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens and seemingly "correct" exposure, I got this really bad photo:

P.S.  The more you understand lighting and WB, the better off you'll be. 

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DS MKII black lines problem.

« on: June 15, 2013, 03:27:58 PM »

I can see if you paid full retail of $8k back in early 2005 for the 1Ds Mark II and trying to keep it.  If not, just get a new camera.  There are tons of models available today for way cheaper that are much better.  The technology has improved a lot and the tech has also become cheaper.  After my sides stopped aching from laughing reading Canon's quote, I just thought to myself, what would I do?  I'd probably go for a 6D as my studio camera.

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What does "!" symbol mean on 5D3 in viewfinder?

« on: June 15, 2013, 01:36:33 PM »

Ahhhhhhhhhh!  I HATE when that thing pops up!  (grins)

I've seen this in my 5D3 and 1Dx time to time, and usually it's just because I have a setting somewhere different from the default.  Since you were shooting HDR, what other settings did you change?

6

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 15, 2013, 01:27:32 AM »

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

You mean like the 1Ds Mark III?  High frame rate and low MP's?

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: June 15, 2013, 12:14:00 AM »

Hey, how about the most simple thing (short of):

Since we (are supposed to ) discuss 1DX and 5D3 raw files does anyone have both cameras?

I would like to see the same picture taken with the same lens, same ISO (and hoping the ISO ratings are the same and not say 10% apart...) , Av and Tv by both cameras.
Also the picture could be taken during the day and/or the night.

I've done this quite a bit.  Not so much recently though.

8

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 14, 2013, 03:20:54 PM »

Question to Canon CPS?Why?  Like you ask, you will get a answer.
The ultimate zoom for hockey worldwide football indoor sports, handball etc  have included  the 200-400 from Nikon a long time and the lens has replaced a variety of lenses for the photographers. The quality are now so good from the cameras  that a stop do not give much benefit and  if  Canon can show that their  lens is a good as a couple of heavy fixed lenses  then it is not much to discuss?
Your own choice that you have a 300 or 400/2,8 ?
For a newspaper or magazine there are no difference if the american football has been shooting with a 400/2,8 or 200-400/4 at F-4

No difference between ISO 5000 and ISO 10,000 for a newspaper or magazine?  Maybe,

But:

I'M NOT SHOOTING FOR NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES, I'M PRINTING 8X10'S OR LARGER

9

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 14, 2013, 08:59:56 AM »

If you have one camera, and it's just an occasional night game, the lens sounds awesome.  For wildlife you better believe I'd be using it, if it made sense economically.  I've seen plenty of guys using Nikon's 200-400 during day sports.  I don't really believe the bokeh would suffer much from f/4 to f/2.8. 

I enjoyed eml58's wildlife shots with the lens.  IQ-wise it is as expected:  oustanding.

10

Lenses / Re: What would you do if you had $2000, a 5DII and no lenses?

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:09:53 AM »

Start driving for Chicago in a big bomber beat up car, wearing shades, at night, with no gas...

11

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:07:51 AM »

it's a bit difficult to change lenses in the middle of a match and even heavier for the back to use multiple cameras and  a  200, 300 and a 400mm lens, I think the Canon sports  Photographers will use 200-400/4 the same way as in international photo agencies use the Nikon 200-400 today and  at sports events and that's why Canon has invested so much in their own 200-400zoom.
The lens has major benefits

The amazing thing here ankorwatt, is that I've provided very valid reasons why I can't buy this lens.  Shooting at 1/500, f/4, ISO 10,000 is unacceptable to me, even with a 1Dx.  Maybe you get well-lit situations, but I don't.  Yes, MSU has well-lit venues, but the D2 and D3 schools I shoot for do not, and most of my football and soccer games this year will be at night. 

The other thing is, I don't really miss too many shots, because I can shoot far shots with the 400 f/2.8, and have the 70-200 zoom on my other camera, and I've gotten fast enough where I can switch quickly. 

But the whole topper is, this 200-400 lens didn't exist a year ago and everyone was getting along fine.  Suddenly, you're arguing with me why I DO need this lens and how I cannot get shots without it, even though I've been doing so for quite awhile and others even longer than me.  Not everyone shoots in ISO 100 conditions like your photos and reviewers have even admitted their concern about f/4. 

I don't even know why I'm explaining this, and am wondering right now why I even do this to myself...

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?

« on: June 13, 2013, 09:24:51 PM »

I actually had my 5D3 first.  But for sports I was shooting with a 1Dx which I had just bought, and a 1D4 which I had had on the 70-200 lens (I was doing football and soccer).  When I would grab the 1Dx or the 1D4, I was always like, "now wait a minute, what do I do?"  No matter how many times I shot with each, lol. 

So then I sold the 1D4, and bought another 1Dx with the rest of my money, and was recommended to an insane asylum.  Insane may be, but the two systems are seamless from one cam to the other.  All the while I'm forgoing vacation after vacation.............

13

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 13, 2013, 09:20:27 PM »

If you don't want to be the person who gets "easily" banned, don't be in the minds of the admins - we have better things to do than look for certains names to appear in discussions with high post counts! And, no matter if we get paid to do the job or not, it's the same amount of work!

mods seem to get their satisfaction on a different level, not from money.
that´s the problem Unfocused mentioned in this thread.
often they do it so they have power, "the last word".
even when it´s only power over a virtuell community.

and as we can see in real life... power corrupts and is abused.

Let it go.  I remember him too, and he was very offensive and I'm not crying that he's gone.  Sorry, but that's just the way he was and well, the admins got tired of it.  I cringed everytime I opened a thread where he last posted, and it was usually for good reason.

but looking at your posts you are no saint either.   

anyway .. i said what i had to say.
i hope the admin gets in touch with me or canon-f1.

Awww come on.  I never am a smarta##, ever..................

14

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 13, 2013, 08:20:23 PM »

If you don't want to be the person who gets "easily" banned, don't be in the minds of the admins - we have better things to do than look for certains names to appear in discussions with high post counts! And, no matter if we get paid to do the job or not, it's the same amount of work!

mods seem to get their satisfaction on a different level, not from money.
that´s the problem Unfocused mentioned in this thread.
often they do it so they have power, "the last word".
even when it´s only power over a virtuell community.

and as we can see in real life... power corrupts and is abused.

Let it go.  I remember him too, and he was very offensive and I'm not crying that he's gone.  Sorry, but that's just the way he was and well, the admins got tired of it.  I cringed everytime I opened a thread where he last posted, and it was usually for good reason.

15

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS Discontinued?

« on: June 13, 2013, 07:46:15 PM »

Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4?  I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.