March 01, 2015, 02:52:23 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 ... 176
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:50:15 PM »
I have read a review on a well know site and they had images of both the 1dx and 5dm3 at the same settings. The 1dx consistently had -1/3 stop or so. This didn't hurt to help the 1dx appear to render better at high iso's too. As we know it is supposed to but its a little trick from Canon prob.

Agree 100%.  I can emperically verify that Bosman, auto ISO for 1DX gives 5000 and 5D Mark III gives 6400.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:31:24 PM »

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:06:17 PM »
Ok, I found one I haven't used yet, at ISO 25,600.  This was at f/3.5, 1/1000s, ISO 25,600, with the 300 f/2.8L I IS lens.  Obviously I could have gone f/2.8 and a slower shutter, but why not test it out?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 01:59:02 PM »
All I did in post for the above photos after I posted them here, was apply NR, sharpen, brighten a tad, and resize if need be.  Above ISO 10000 the 1DX will slightly blow out the highlights, but keep in mind, nothing so bad that you can't just adjust the highlight and whites sliders; the detail comes back instantly.  Overall I was very happy with the noise performance and metering.  Soccer is difficult when one team has white jerseys and the other team has black.  All I could really do was set auto ISO, f/2.8, and as fast of a shutter as I could to keep proper exposure, sometimes even with the 1DX dipping to 1/500.  I've found football actually to be a lot more of a controlled shooting environment.  I'll report back on that this Thursday, the 30th, as there is one at 7pm.  I believe this field has 6 lights, and not 4 like the soccer field has (much darker).

Btw, I chose not to crop the goalie kicker so much for my final photo, as there just wasn't enough resolution for such a steep crop.  After re-cropping, I applied 65 NR, brightened a tad, saturated a tad, then sharpened, and it was done.  Took all of 90 seconds.

Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!
« on: August 26, 2012, 12:17:58 PM »
To actually contribute to this thread, I view street photography as walking down the street, downtown area, and taking photos of whatever.  For this I typically use a 50 prime, most often my 50 f/1.4.  If I went to shoot something far away and get a compressed look, I take my 135L.  That's as long as I'll go for this type of photography simply for convenience.  I take the grip OFF my 5D3 and use that, because I hate walking around public with 1D bodies when I'm not really shooting anything that would require a 1D body.  I want to find an HDR image I did downtown back in June at night, so I will look for it.

Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!
« on: August 26, 2012, 11:59:50 AM »
For street photography I use a Canon S5 IS from waist level. Nobody seems to notice it or care about it. If I feel more comfortable in the area I'm shooting, then  I use my Rebel XTi with the Jenna Zeiss 35mm or the 50mm Planar.
I don't want to use anything bigger because people gets defensive, sometimes aggressive and not cooperating at all :D

So you don't carry a 1DX and 1D4, strapped across each shoulder, with a 400mm f/2.8L IS lens on each?  ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 11:25:49 AM »
Well I'm gonig through some shots from tonight's Ashland U. vs. Wooster soccer match, and this is pretty cool.  I was shooting with a 300 f/2.8L I IS lens .

This is good! How was AF consistency compared to previously used 1-Series bodies eg 1D4 & 1D3?


I took 260 photos exactly and didn't miss one due to AF.  They were all sharp.  That's quite a substantial improvement over my 1D Mark IV, which at night I had say, about a 70-75% hit rate.  I'll still take it with me for extra reach, but I can't see getting any better than the 1DX for sports. 

Who cares what the sharpest aperture is, really?  Do you change aperture because of sharpness?  Sharpness of what?  I use aperture to control my DOF or flash exposure.  If my lens is sharpest at f/4, I don't care because how does that have any real useful impact on your photography? 

Second reason I don't care is because just because my lens is sharpest at f/4, doesn't mean it's NOT sharp at other apertures.  So again, I don't care.

Sure I do. I shoot a lot of very high detail subjects (birds...loads and loads of fine detail). For me, its imperative to get as much light down the lens as possible while maximizing sharpness, and flash is rarely an option (more so because it takes too long to recharge, and I often have to fire off a string shots at 8fps to get a single keeper). Less light means more noise, more noise means more NR, more NR means less, often considerably less, fine detail. If I was using a sensor with larger pixels, the sharpness issue would be largely moot, since the pixel pitch would intrinsically limit maximum resolution anyway. I use a Canon 7D, however, which is about 1.6 times as dense as the 1D X or 1.45 times as dense as the 5D III. Those two max out at 72 and 80 lp/mm, respectively and can't resolve any more detail than you get at an f/8 aperture anyway. The 7D has a theoretical peak resolution of 116 lp/mm, allowing it to resolve most of the detail you can get from f/5.6. As such, I try to shoot around f/5.6 or slightly wider (which helps improve image crispness...or microcontrast...if the lens can resolve more detail than the sensor). I've found that f/4 is a great aperture for small passerines (song/perching birds)...gets me just enough DOF to capture an entire bird, maximizes light down the lens, nicely blurs out other words, it maximizes the quality of my work. There IS an impact.

If f/8 offers you the same benefit, great! More power to you. But there isn't any need to go around dissing those of us who prefer to KNOW the technological capabilities of our gear so we can maximize the potential of our own work. Not everyone requires the use of f/8 to attain a deeper DOF.

3rd gear in a Porsche will get you there, but to maximize your vehicle's potential, you have to get to the higher gears.

Sharpness is the ONLY route of maximizing potential?  Secondly, nobody was dissing anyone.  That's great if you know where your lens is sharpest for what you do and you can use that information to get photos you want, sure.  Personally and for my work, it doesn't matter.  I'm not going for the absolute sharpest shots I can possibly take, I'm going for the shots with the correct amount of lighting and correct amount of DOF.  Sharpness is not a "higher gear."  If I'm shooting portrait shots and want a great amount of bokeh, and my lens is sharpest at f/5.6, and I shoot there because it's sharpest there, I will be fired very quickly.  That is why I personally don't need to know where it is sharpest.  I just don't.


It's probably a technique issue.  I'm terrible, I mean terrible, at thin DOF's!  I come from a sports background and learning to shoot at f/1.2-f/2 has been difficult for me, but I'm trying :)

1D Mark IV works with everything at f/8 as far as I know.

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses
« on: August 26, 2012, 03:08:12 AM »
50 f/1.2L is sharper from f/1.2 to about f/2.0.  From f/2.8 and beyond, the 50 f/1.4 lens is sharper.  By f/8 it's noticeably sharper in your photos.  The 50 f/1.4 focuses faster.  I own both and am selling the 50L and keeping the 1.4.  Then again, I'm getting a 24-70L II as well.

The 50L wider than 2.8 is amazing, but if you're up close to your subject DOF becomes a technique issue.  It is better constructed as well.  Overall, it's the most disappointing L lens I own.  It just doesn't do better than even the nifty fifty narrower than f/4 or so.

The only reason you'd buy it is if you need to shoot a lot of f/1.2 to f/2.  I don't anymore, so I'm selling.  If you shoot at f/1.8 let's say, it is truly amazing and the bokeh approaches that of the 85 f/1.2L II.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:43:07 AM »
We could always dream of a 600-1200mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom lens, that's push-pull type  8).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:41:01 AM »
Happened Friday night, and I wasn't too concerned, since I somehow only noticed the scratches, not the crack at the time.  My heart dropped when I saw it in the morning  :'(

At least it appears the crack is in a separate piece from the main chassis, so hopefully it's fixable without resorting to black RTV.

Oh, the 24-70 didn't fair too well either... filter ring hit the cement (no filter).  No glass shattered, but now it's a 30-70mm that won't focus to infinity.

So you've invented a new Canon lens, that can't be used for landscape photography?  :)

Sorry, couldn't pass that up.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe After Effects
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:37:38 AM »
Awesome!  Thanks for sharing the link!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:26:46 AM »
Own Canon Inc.. 8)

Access to any and all Canon cameras and lenses at any time, with people doing all of my post-processing :) :)

Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 176