April 21, 2014, 12:01:25 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 162
Lenses / Re: Best lense for bird shots
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:52:23 AM »
Just buy the 1200mm lens and slap a 7D on it and shoot all the wildlife photography you want from the comfort of your own home  :P

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:30:56 AM »
If I could only have 3 lenses, this is pretty easy.  24-70L II, 70-200L II IS, 100-400L.  That covers everything I need to shoot.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - issues in low light at reception
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:29:15 AM »
You must have set the 1d X up wrong, because even if you have a magic 7d and 1d3, the X is still way better. But to use that supersmall spot af will be a poor choice for lowlight and without expansion points the iTR tracking doesn't work. I find the 1d X to be without question the best camera on every level ever produced. I shoot in 12800 f1,4 light with 1/80s and the exposure and af works  fantastic!


I just had some professional 8 x 10 prints done with metallic luster with a 1DX and they look just as good as any 22mp photos I have taken with the 5D Mark III.

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:27:27 AM »
I want to see the REAL 1Ds Mark IV.

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM vs IS II
« on: August 13, 2012, 08:31:16 PM »
There are subtle differences.  The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter.  That's about it.

Guys that have Mark I or even the F4 version, don't know what they are missing. Can't say this enough.

I haven't shot with the mark I, but comparing other photos, I cannot see a difference, if any I guess.  Is it signficantly sharper?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?
« on: August 13, 2012, 08:29:38 PM »

APS-C and EF-S should not be linked

There is still always the APS-H, 1.3 crop which in the 1D4 gives more reach than any 1.6 crop

Yes, EF-S and crop bodies are probably better as 2 distinct topics.

That said, since 1.3 is less than 1.6, I assume you are saying that higher IQ from the ASP-H could allow you to crop images a great deal more dramatically in post, which would sort of equal having more reach?

Also, it seems almost everyone on this site has written APS-H off as dead, though.  Is so, that would be too bad, though, IMHO.


Yes, the 1D Mark IV, despite having a crop factor of 1.3 vs. 1.6, actually has more practical reach than the 7D for instance.  It also has to do with how many megapickels are crammed in.  Mmmmmm, that reminds me of pickels.  Grilled cheese and a pickel on the side...............

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - issues in low light at reception
« on: August 13, 2012, 08:25:15 PM »
In low light I definitely never try to spot focus, ever, in any situation.  I've found it just doesn't make that much difference in most, not all, but most, situations.  I've had fantastic luck with the 5D Mark III in very low light, I just haven't tried the 1DX there yet.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 for sports/action?
« on: August 13, 2012, 08:22:35 PM »
I'm not sure why some feel that it CANNOT be used for sports.  It doesn't shoot as fast as the 1D Mark IV.  It focuses just as fast, it just doesn't SHOOT as fast.  There should be no problems with AF'ing quickly, at least I haven't had any.  It AF's slightly slower than the 1D X.

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM vs IS II
« on: August 13, 2012, 07:06:05 PM »
There are subtle differences.  The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter.  That's about it.

Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: August 13, 2012, 03:37:10 PM »
I've been wondering about this myself, is it possible to insure my gear if I'm not a homeowner?

Of course.  You can buy insurance for anything.  The rates might be a bit higher though.

Canon General / Re: To CPS or not to CPS...That is the question
« on: August 13, 2012, 03:36:13 PM »
Well, not that this matters much, but are you a pro? 

I am.  Mostly weddings.  I've seen the videos of photogs backpeddling into fountains and dropping gear off of a balcony.  I try to avoid that stuff but things happen.  ;)

I have seen a number of ThinkTank photo CPS bags out there, do those come with the platinum membership?

Then YES.  Get at least the Gold Membership.  I have that and they mail you a sheet of mailing labels to send your stuff in.  It's great.  Platinum is better b/c you get free loaners.  Both have 24/7 support for free.

Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:59:08 PM »
The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.

Yes true indeed.  However, you must evaluate what you are shooting.  If I'm only doing sports for instance, and I shoot at f/1.8, I'm going to lose my job.  I can't go wider than f/2.8 due to DOF issues anyways.  If you are doing portraits and weddings especially, yes you can go wider.

Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:23:21 PM »
Realistically if you would ever have the 70-200L IS II lens, you could honestly substitute those as long as you didn't need wider than 2.8. 

Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:21:51 PM »
Nope, I gotcha.  I wasn't thinking about the previous versions either.  You are right, there are a series prior to the IS versions.  I couldn't imagine shooting football with a 400mm with no IS, haha :)

Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:48:11 PM »
I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them.  Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider.  The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.

I would go for the Ver. II as anyone would if I have the budget, but as I mention in my post, I do not have enough funds to buy them, not everyone can afford these lenses if you ask me so yea, sadly I have to pass them

I got great shape 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS together for $9500.  If I had gone two of the new version 2's that would have been almost $19,000, about double the price.  These lenses if taken care of are not going to have problems. 

Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 162