September 30, 2014, 04:20:40 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 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 173
1561
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.

1562
Animal Kingdom / Re: Birds with attitude
« on: August 20, 2012, 04:13:19 PM »
THANK YOU!

1563
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.

1564
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.

1565
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 02:59:15 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.

1566
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 02:56:46 PM »
I'm looking now, and my highest useable ISO was 16,000.  Which I agree, is VERY good!  I just want people to be careful because I see a lot of "it can go up to ISO.............etc."  Just be careful and realize that the overall lighting matters too and 25,600 is really pushing the quality.  I am however, very happy that it performs at as high of ISO's as it does.  So no complaints on the camera at all.  I'll use it again, so I'll have more shots to compare.

1567
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 02:44:34 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. 

1568
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:58:34 PM »
I agree with everything you said.  In real life, though, is ISO 25600 REALLY useable on the 1DX?  I was shooting soccer Saturday night and images where I used that setting are not useable at all.  In fact, I noticed on the 1DX the higher the ISO from 10,000 and above, the worse the highlights got blown out.  However, I agree with your assessment regarding the 7D.  THAT for sure needs improvement.

1569
1Ds3:  Unusable above ISO 800ish.  Superb ISO 50-200.  Not a low-light camera and old tech.
5D2:  Great range, poor AF system.  Good IQ up through ISO 6400.
5D3:  Superior of the 3, great AF system, auto ISO in manual mode, in cam Multi-exposre, in-cam HDR, etc.

I've owned all 3.  The 1Ds3 was really superb at low ISO but that fell apart really fast.  I never bothered to shoot above ISO 800.  It's also old technology, with Digic 3 processors.  You can spot-meter thru active AF and is a superior landscape and well-lit scenery/portrait camera.  It is NOT better than the 5D3 though, even in these conditions.

The 5D2 was great IQ-wise, but not as good as the 1Ds3 ISO 100-400.  Beyond 400, the 5D2 looked much better, and was usuable at high ISO values.  Very poor AF system, and only has 9 points.

The 5D3 is the clear winner.  It has an advanced AF system and you can do auto ISO in manual mode.  The noise performance is a bit better than the 5D2.  Also has the newest technology.  You can use the 5D3 in ANY condition, whereas the above 2 would have to be more specific.

You need to decide what features you need.  I wouldn't recommend the 1Ds3 however, because there is better tech available now.

1570
Lenses / Re: What lenses do you own?
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:00:02 PM »
Kind of lame since most people have them listed in their signature anyways  :-X

but you're missing the point. there's more to the topic.  I'd like to know what the users like/dislike about their lenses.  sure it's a broad question.  I'm not just looking for the list of lenses but some thoughts regarding them.  If you actually read the original posting, you'd understand this.  If you don't think you have the time to contribute, why respond at all?

Stop flaming dimwit. Asking what lenses you have is asking a hundred people what food they eat, everyone has different taste leading to completely different outcome with no discernible use for the data you generate.... but anyways, gear collectors will always be gear collectors. Photography is not how many lenses you have but how you see the light and the subject.

Thank you for that inspiring verse.  I almost had to reach for tissues, as it was nearly as beautiful as reading Keats on a warm summer evening, sipping red wine by a calm fire.

Because the OP wants to know.  The neat thing about this board is that he CAN ask these questions if he wants to.  If you don't like a particular thread, ignore it.  Simple.

1571
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:20:18 AM »
If the camera fits between the 5D Mark III and the 1DX, it isn't going to be called a 7D Mark II or a 70D!!!

1572
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D MKIV VS 1DX Cameras
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:18:21 AM »
On July 13, our son , Alex, and I shot photos using 2 separate cameras at a play where two of our grandchildren were part of the cast.
 
Alex used  the 1D Mark IV, and I used the 1DX body that arrived earlier that day. This shoot was exactly what I wanted to compare lens and bodies. I am ready for all kinds of night events with the new beauty.  Alex used the 70-200 mm f/2.8 Mark II lens and because the 1DX is full-frame, I used the 100-400 MM lens.
 
You can identify which camera was used by moving the mouse arrow to the i(nfo) indicator.
 
The link - http://redwingsfan.zenfolio.com/p184856908

This Friday, I am shooting the first high school football game for this season using the 1DX and 100-400mm combination.  I will report back on results.

COOL.  I have a night soccer match Saturday and I'll have the 300 f/2.8L on the 1DX and the 70-200L on the 1D4 so I can report back on those results as well.  Thanks.

1573
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D MKIV VS 1DX Cameras
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:08:18 AM »
I shoot with both and the 1DX whips the crap out of the 1D4, IN LOW LIGHT.  At low ISO's, not really much difference in real life.  Since I have sufficient glass, the extra reach isn't a huge concern but it helps.  I put either a 300 or 400 on the 1DX and the 70-200 on the 1D4 and is fantastic combo.  The 1D4 cannot be useable above ISO 5000 in my opinion whereas I had keepers at a soccer match of ISO 16000.  I didn't really notice any real difference in AF accuracy to tell you the truth.  I had just as many misses with both cameras in the low light.  However, the IQ is different beginning about ISO 1600 and above.  Overall, the 1DX is better, with the 1D4 coming in a close second.  The differences exaggerated on spec sheets aren't realized in real life in my opinion and that's exactly why I keep both cameras with me at sporting events.  Just evaluate where you'll be shooting.  If there isn't much light, like indoor sports or night field sports, the 1DX is superior. 

1574
Reading many 7D reviews and having used it myself, if you shoot jpeg, they will be soft.  You have to set the sharpness to 2 or 3 in your picture style.  If you shoot RAW then you're fine.  I think you just had one bad shot.  The rest of your photos are sharp.  If only I could shoot such that I only ever had ONE bad shot :) :)

1575
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 19, 2012, 11:25:00 PM »
If Canon could actually pull this off, I might crack open my wallet for this and a 5DIII if they both include flexible video crop modes!  I can't even believe they've removed that feature from the T4i.  It should have been gradually improved and included on all Canon cameras.

If they can't do that, I'll probably just keep my current cameras.  I've skipped 5 generations on one of them and 2 on the other so I don't mind.  They're going to have to cough up the goods if they want my money.

How true this is.  I'll tell ya what, had I bought a 1Ds Mark II back in 2005 brand new for $8k, I might very well still be shooting with that as my primary camera :)

Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 173