September 01, 2014, 11:03:13 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 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 171
1531
Canon General / Re: Adorama issues anyone? Ever try to return a product?
« on: August 21, 2012, 10:08:02 PM »
As I stated in another thread, I had a big problem with them today.  I declined an offer for the 1D Mark IV and instead of sending it back, they sent me a 5D Mark II.  I contacted them and they said they'd get right on it and then get back with me.  Going on 4 hours now.  I am livid.

1532
EOS Bodies - For Stills / What would you do?
« on: August 21, 2012, 09:57:06 PM »
Well I've done a ton of business with Adorama in the past.  So this isn't just a one time deal where I sent gear in to have evaluated for money or a trade.  I sent in my 1D Mark IV just to see what they'd offer, and I didn't like it.  So they sent it back.  Well, they sent something back.  I opened the package up tonight and it was a 5D Mark II, not the 1D Mark IV that I sent.  I immediately contacted them and they said they are on it and would contact me back as soon as possible.  This was about 3-4 hours ago.  How upset do you get and how much do you push this so early?  I'm beyond upset.  Depending on the outcome of this I may never do business there again. 

1533
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 03:46:04 PM »
The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.

... but still many will because they shelled out $3500 to get the latest gimmick on the block, and the arguably the "clean images at high iso" advantage compared to the 5d2 is minor and the 3d shows a real step forward.


I doubt this.  For me at least, it is a clear difference between wants and needs vs benefits (IE Income potential).  For me right now, the mk3 kicks major wedding ass.  This new megapixel beast would be nice to have for shooting wedding formals, outdoors in bright light.  But necessary?  No.  If your a studio guy, yeah, this camera makes sense.  Landscape guys, you bet this makes sense.  But for the kind of work I'm doing, its more of a want than a need.

Oh, and btw...the mk2 would never pull down usable images at ISO 12,800 ...and thats more than just a gimmick!

Post of the day right here.  Finally someone with some good sense.

1534
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 02:22:19 PM »
So, a 7D Mark II that will priced and have features above the 5D Mark III?  Uhhhh, no.  You'll have to rename it.  And if it's not renamed, it isn't coming out ANYTIME soon.

There is zero reason why the 7D2 would not have better features for less money than the 5D3 that's what the original 7D had over the 5D2 other than sensor.

The 7D had better features?  Like what?  Less IQ?  Less MP?  It did have better AF, which many on here will disagree with for whatever reason.  I happen to enjoy the better AF of the 7D over the 5D2.  To have better features than a 5D Mark III, it's going to have to be priced above the 5D3.  The only camera with better features right now, current model, is the 1DX.  Exactly what features are you suggesting that it will have improved over the 5D Mark III?  I can't think of any that wouldn't put it above price and above model.  If it's just more MP, then I'm not sure this will entice anyone to buy that instead of a 5D3, UNLESS it is much less in cost.  Is this the improvement you foresee?

1535
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 11:47:25 AM »
The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.

... but still many will because they shelled out $3500 to get the latest gimmick on the block, and the arguably the "clean images at high iso" advantage compared to the 5d2 is minor and the 3d shows a real step forward.

Another feature mentioned about the camera is better heat dissipation of the sensor compared to other EOS cameras. Apparently, this results in industry leading low ISO performance.

"Heat dissipation" is the real problem of eos iso noise (not another sensor design like Sony's)?! Since it isn't April 1st, can anyone please enlighten me or share a link with an explanation?

Gimmick?  Let's go shoot some sports together at night, or perhaps a wedding reception of kids running around.  Your advertising to the sports editor or the couple of the wedding will really be a gimmick when you have no shots to produce and I have several hundred.  I owned both the 5D2 and 7D and the 5D3 is way better than those 2 combined.  Hardly a gimmick.  If it's a gimmick, fine, it gets me shots I couldn't get with either the 5D2 or 7D.  All to their own I suppose.

On a more useful note, I doubt this camera will be released for some time.  The 1DX and 5D3 are way too new.

1536
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 10:19:36 AM »
Why don't we transfer all of the 1DX-esque ficitcious specs from the 7D Mark II thread and transfer them to this thread?  That would actually at least make SOME sense.  Personally this would be more of a 1Ds Mark IV camera to me, or at least I hope :)

1537
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 10:17:30 AM »
So, a 7D Mark II that will priced and have features above the 5D Mark III?  Uhhhh, no.  You'll have to rename it.  And if it's not renamed, it isn't coming out ANYTIME soon.

1538
I don't know why everyone just defends the camera they own?  I've owned the 5D Mark II, the 1Ds Mark III, the 7D, and own the 5D Mark III.  The 5D Mark III beats the crap out of the 5D2 and 7D combined.  It has way better AF than the 5D2, and has way better ISO performance than the 7D.  It also can do auto ISO in manual mode.  It has many more features.  It's better than the two combined.  If you can only take ONE shot at a time, and have a camera that's better than two cameras combined, how is this not the best choice?

If you are going for FF value, at a GREAT price and great IQ, then 5D Mark II's IQ is absolutely tremendous.  I knew a lot of pros who didn't buy a 1Ds Mark III because of the superior ISO performance of the 5D Mark II.  If you don't need the latest AF technology, it is a great camera. 

If you want everything in one camera, I'd consider the 5D Mark III #2 on Canon's current camera list, behind the 1DX.  If you don't need that and/or are worried about price, get the 5D Mark II.

I cannot recommend the 1Ds Mark III.  Unless you only shoot ISO 50-400, outside, it's not going to be a good deal and you'll likely be disappointed.  The only advantage is AF point spot metering.  However, the files are pretty unusable above ISO 800.  It was a great camera in its time, but has been outdated by technology.


1539
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 11:18:27 PM »
A 7D successor is coming. I am convinced. Especially after seeing that Camerashops are offering the current 7D with a present (like a Wacom tablet) I do believe they do that to get rid of their stock samples.

I hope the 7D MKII will inherit the 61-AF
- 61-point AF with up to 41 cross-type AF points
- ISO up to 25600 and Less high ISO noise at 6400 (would be great if that would be even 12800)
- dual slots

I don't mind keeping 18 megapixels and same framerate as now.

I think that at the end , the 7D MKII willl be positioned where the 1D MKIV is now and replace this camera. So no more x1.3 but only x1.0 and x1.6 (as where the 7D MKII is the top of the APS-C line)

I can't make any sense of this whatsoever.

1540
In my situation, I will have to sell my current backup, a 50D with 14,500 actuations, so the new FF will have to be my backup to my 7D for sports and primary for everything else.  Is a 5D3 better suited for this role than a 5D2?

7D + 5D2 + Glass > 5D3

5D3 + Glass > 5D2 + 7D + Glass  :) :) :)

1541
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 07:27:02 PM »
jrista,

I got ya now.  I'm willing to avoid that high of an ISO value, now that we know it's limitations in that particular setting.  I'm totally comfortable shooting at f/4 down to f/3.2 if need be.  I'd rather open up than raise the ISO for sure.  Thanks for your explanations.

Sorry I seemed to have changed the thread :)

1542
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 04:43:15 PM »
Okay, that makes sense.  However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have.  That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable.  I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different.  The shadows are actually really, really bad.  I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it.  I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow.  Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited.  I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600.  In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8.  The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

I agree that all of this is true.  Which simply bolsters my point about shooting night soccer at ISO 25600 with a 1DX.  It's beyond lab tests and spec sheets.

1543
Animal Kingdom / Re: Birds with attitude
« on: August 20, 2012, 04:13:19 PM »
THANK YOU!

1544
I guess the best way to resolve this in my head is to use my CPS eval loans: 5D2 first, then 5D3.  Then I can see if the wow factor is worth the extra $1500

Good choice.  But really to be down to earth, the advanced features of the 5D3 just plainly make it easier to use.  It's just that.  It's easier to use, especially in less than ideal situations, than either the 1Ds3 or 5D2.  But do check them out, that's a smart idea.

1545
EOS Bodies / Re: review the 5D3 reviews
« on: August 20, 2012, 03:05:34 PM »
To tell you the truth, the jpegs from the 5D Mark II weren't bad either.

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 171