April 25, 2014, 12:10:48 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 163
1486
Lenses / Re: Any updates on the 24-70 2.8 II lens?
« on: August 15, 2012, 11:14:31 PM »
I give you a little hint (that is not a joke):

Wait for the new 24-70 2.8 II. It´s very sharp with no visible CA´s and the AF works in combination with the 5D Mark III and 1D X super super fast.

Canon stopped the production, because I and a few other photographers under NDA report some problems that occours only in the production models. My prototype is not effected. We send in some additional wishes to.

Hope that Canon do their best for this lens.

Canon told me that the lens maybe hit the market mid september 2012.

If I compare this lens (prototype) with the new Tamron all I can say: Wait and buy the Canon 24-70 2.8 II if you have the money or if you earn your money with photography.

No further information is given (NDA).

NDA?  Here's how the lens performs and here's when it's coming out, but I can't tell you anything, I'm NDA :)

1487
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DMkIII for sports
« on: August 15, 2012, 11:08:07 PM »
I've shot some, but will put more into practice for the fall sports season.  I plan on using the 5D3 for tennis, because the 1DX shutter is just way too loud.  So to answer your question, I have no choice but to be able to.

1488
1D X Sample Images / Re: 1DX Dynamic Range
« on: August 15, 2012, 08:17:44 PM »
I can do a LR vs. Camera RAW comparison but that seems worthless considering they are supposed to use the same "engine" for RAW processing.

1489
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 15, 2012, 06:29:36 PM »
Well I made my final sale decision today.  I did not go with a second 1DX, but rather kept my 1D Mark IV and sold my 1Ds Mark III and a 5D Mark III I had earlier.  I really like the colors and extra reach with IQ on the 1D Mark IV for outdoor sports.  So yes, one 1DX was probably worth the 6800 but I decided the 1D4 was so good I wanted to keep that, and then the 5D3 for weddings/baby photos and quiet sports like tennis and golf.  Either way on the 1D4 you won't be disappointed, should you choose that route.

1490
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 15, 2012, 04:41:32 PM »
Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it.  What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist.  I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it.  But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you.  You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX.  I use each for a specific purpose.  When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop.  And yes I can notice 22 vs 18.  For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better.  Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do.  It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX.  I kept both for different reasons.

The OP asked about if it's worth the money, and yes it is. And for me to just say yes, would prompt someone to ask, why, what's better?

And that's what I did.

But fair enough. We have different needs and style. I also shoot a lot of kids, and I don't need to crop there, I would crop for sports, so there's one difference. And nothing wrong with either.

This is why Canon make the 1100d and the 600d (and the 650d was just to show you how black rubber can turn white, apparently ::) and the 5d's and the 1d's. We all now the same thing here. There's good reason why they make all of them. Different needs and wants.

And we can argue until we are blue in the face of which one is better. I have friends who use the first 5d, because it has better edge sharpness than enay other camera on the planet. I'm not getting into that, I'll just take it for what is, and argument for or against something and make up my own mind.

*shakehands* bdunbar79

You got it.  Hey, I agree it was worth the money.  I bought one didn't I?  :P

1491
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:50:12 PM »
Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it.  What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist.  I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it.  But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you.  You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX.  I use each for a specific purpose.  When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop.  And yes I can notice 22 vs 18.  For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better.  Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do.  It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX.  I kept both for different reasons.

1492
Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:19:28 PM »
That's fine, I just didn't know what you meant.  Thanks for the clarification.

1493
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:18:17 PM »
Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

I'm still confused.  What moments aren't you catching?  I've shot basketball with a 5D3 and didn't miss one shot.  What are you shooting?

1494
Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 15, 2012, 02:45:50 PM »
As mentioned above, you should check out the lensrentals blog article with regards to focus accuracy.

It says 5D III in AF mode yields a more precise focus with the 70-300 L than the 70-200 II L (almost half the value of standard deviation, 13 vs. 24),

"70-300mm L appears to focus with the accurate group, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is kind of on the border. Not in the teens certainly, but it’s the best of all the other lenses."

Except in sports, when you  need dual cross types and cross types.  And a wider aperture.  General use, I'd probably pick the 70-300L because of the range.  I'd never take the 70-300L to sports though.

If I recall correctly, that's also with the center point, not all AF points. I could be wrong though.

What is with the center point?  The available dual cross types and cross type sensors available is with all AF points.  In order to use dual cross typeS, you need one more than one point, right?  Look at your manual, it's explained fully.

1495
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 15, 2012, 02:39:09 PM »
I have both the 1DX and 5D3.  The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable.  So easy to spend someone else's money.  The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4.  But I get paid to shoot sports.  If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

Why would I say something I don't see? It makes no sense. I'm just saying what the differences are, because a lot of people say, meh, it's no difference. Well, that is wrong. And why would it cost twice the money if 4 less mp and a bigger body was all that was between them??

To your defense, I haven't used any other raw-converter than Lightroom 4, and process the 5d3 files in Lr and it is STILL as we talked about when the 5d3 was new, the images aren't as sharp as the 5d2.

If it is the files from the 1d X or if it is MUCH better support in Lr, I don't know, but I have shot 20.000 images with the 5d3 with Reikan calibrated lenses and I haven't gotten one image sharp as I did from the 5d2 or the 1d4. The 1d X is way different, I can apply much less sharpening to get them truly sharp, and overdoing it a tad makes them pop like crazy.

I don't care if people say they are very simmilar. Trying to shoot my kids with the 5d3 was incredibley much easier than with the 1d4, but with the 1d X EVERY shot is perfectly exposed and focused, and I always have the right moment in a burst.

And the perfectly exposed images results in much less rescuing in post which also leads to less noise.

I do agree that you have to be very careful with the 25600 iso, but compare 6400 iso and the 1d is HIGHLY useable and they clean up very nicley, whilst the 5d3 is gritty and ugly. The new lightmetering in the 1d X had a lot more to say than I first thought, as I said, no need to rescue an image, it just sticks.

If that matters to YOU, I have no idea and I don't care, but if it is someone out there who wonders if the 5d3 is the best there is and like me, want to buy the best even if they don't earn that in within 4 months (or at all), the answer is very clear....

If you don't have the money to spend on a 1d X, fine, not all people have it or even remotley close too wanting to spend it. But if you do, don't settle for the 5d3 when you can have an EPIC smilemachine in the 1d X.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the 5D3 was the best ever.  However, if you are shooting weddings with a 5D3 and getting paid, the 1DX will get you no additional business or money.  The photos to the normal person do not look any different.  People are not pixel peepers.  I've tested the 5D3 and 1DX at all ISO's.  25,600 and above on both are unusable.  In fact, they had the exact same level of noise it appeared.  Therefore, the high ISO crap doesn't hold too well with me, considering I can shoot with both at 12,800 and and don't need to go higher.

I can't wait for the day the 1DX replacement comes out and then the 1DX will suddenly be crap and we should all be spending the money for the new $8000 replacement, because there will be "no comparison between the two."

1496
Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 15, 2012, 11:43:08 AM »
The hits I get with the 85L are fantastic in sports, I agree!  That's a nice shot.

1497
Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 15, 2012, 11:37:15 AM »
As mentioned above, you should check out the lensrentals blog article with regards to focus accuracy.

It says 5D III in AF mode yields a more precise focus with the 70-300 L than the 70-200 II L (almost half the value of standard deviation, 13 vs. 24),

"70-300mm L appears to focus with the accurate group, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is kind of on the border. Not in the teens certainly, but it’s the best of all the other lenses."

Except in sports, when you  need dual cross types and cross types.  And a wider aperture.  General use, I'd probably pick the 70-300L because of the range.  I'd never take the 70-300L to sports though. 

1498
Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 15, 2012, 11:30:48 AM »
I would agree that for portraits I enjoy the 135L more than the 85L.  I personally just enjoy the more compressed look.  I actually like the 200 f/2L lens for this too. 

1499
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 15, 2012, 11:26:21 AM »
I have both the 1DX and 5D3.  The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable.  So easy to spend someone else's money.  The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4.  But I get paid to shoot sports.  If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

1500
I have a 7D and  5D3.  I think they make a really nice combination (as did the 7D and 5D2).  I was always impressed with the 7D for sports.  A few months back my 7D broke, and while it was off for repairs, I got a great deal on a slightly used 1D4.  It's great, but not so much better than my 7D that I understand the price difference.  Now that my 7D is back, my 1D4 will head off to eBay.

There's actually a HUGE difference between the 1D4 and 7D for sports.  You have to know the settings.  If you do, you'll understand the price difference.  Not to mention IQ differences.

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 163