September 17, 2014, 09:52:11 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 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 172
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 -

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.

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. 

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 :) :)

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 :)

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II
« on: August 19, 2012, 10:59:03 PM »
I'm grumpy because it's Sunday night and I have to go to work tomorrow  >:( >:( >:(

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 19, 2012, 10:52:45 PM »
If they do have a 7D Mark II or a 70D, neither are going to be better than a 5D Mark III.  They need a camera that will fit between the 1D X and the 5D Mark III, like where the 1D Mark IV is right now, for that to happen.  But keeping on topic, suppose it were a 24mp sensor (which it won't be) but suppose it is a 24mp APS-C, it'll still be noiser than hell above ISO 3200, where it won't compete with a 5D3, rendering the extra resolution at high ISO's useless. Will it be a good camera?  Sure!  But I'm thinking it'll just fit between the current 7D and the 5D Mark III.  I'd rather speculate on a camera that fits between the 5D3 and 1DX :)

Lenses / Re: Going to FF from APS-C, need lens advice
« on: August 19, 2012, 07:33:17 PM »
The 70-300L is not a slide barrel zoom, it's a rotation zoom. 

I'm not sure having a 70-200L and a 70-300L zoom lens is the way to go.  If you want to keep your 70-200L, I would personally either get the 100-400L or the 300 f/4L prime lens.  If you want the 70-300L zoom, you might consider selling the 70-200L lens.

I would agree with most of this.  However the 70-300 is no where near as sharp as the 70-200.  Just because there is overlap on the focal length don't expect the images to be as good with the 70-300.  I would not take the advise of selling the 70-200 to get the 70-300.

Buying a 300 f/4 prime is a great suggestion though and this lens works well with the 1.4x converter.

Nobody advised him to sell the 70-200L TO GET the 70-300L.  All that was stated is that if the poster WANTS to get the 70-300L no matter what, then there is no sense in having both.  Which, there isn't.

Lenses / Re: Going to FF from APS-C, need lens advice
« on: August 19, 2012, 06:53:48 PM »
Personally my beginning FF kit would be a 5D Mark II w/24-105L kit lens.  70-200L II IS lens.  And a 300mm f/4L prime lens.  This being coming up from APS-C.  Why would I do that?  Because that's exactly what I did when I went to FF :)

Lenses / Re: Going to FF from APS-C, need lens advice
« on: August 19, 2012, 06:49:49 PM »
Thanks, but not really useful.  There's "lots and lots and lots", "lots and lots", and "lots" of money.  I'm trying to use the least number of "lots".  If I had unlimited amounts of money, I'd be on the GOP presidential ticket and wouldn't need this group's advice.  I would buy the entire Canon and Nikon lens lines and all 3 or each's top DSLRs.  Unfortunately, I have to watch my Benjamins.

I think he was joking.  Breathe!

Lenses / Re: What lenses do you own?
« on: August 19, 2012, 06:48:34 PM »
I group my lenses together.  I have many lenses, because I shoot a lot of different things over a wide variety of situations.  However, I am becoming more specialized in my photography, so I will likely sell a lot of my shorter focal length lenses:

16-35L, 24L, 35L:  This group is fun to take on not necessarily landscape photography, but scenery photography, especially in Pennsylvania where we like to go, or out west, etc.  Compared to my 24L and 35L, I don't really like the IQ of the 16-35L, but I like the shorter focal length flexibility.
50 primes (own the 50L, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, over several years of accumulation :)):  Just a great, convenient focal length for any type of shooting situation.  A 50 always goes in my bag as a backup lens.
85L:  Excellent lens at all apertures, for just about everything.  Love it.
100 f/2:  Indoor sports lens.  Love it.
24-105L:  Good general walkabout lens.  I have good enough glass however, that I can say this is my lowest IQ-wise performing lens.  Dislike it.
135L:  Indoor sports lens, portrait lens.  Love it!
180L:  macro lens, my only macro lens, and will never sell it.  I absolutely love it.
200 f/2L:  Amazing lens for anything, including indoor sports, flattering portraits.  CANON'S BEST LENS.
300 f/2.8L:  Must have for me, sports lens.
400 f/2.8L:  Must have for me, sports lens.
100-400L:  I like the versatility, but don't use it much.  Will likely sell it.
70-200L:  My everything lens, mainly sports on the 1D Mark IV but love it for everything!  CANON'S BEST ZOOM LENS.

I will most likely purchase a 24-70L II lens.  When I do that, I am selling the 35L, 50L, and 24-105L lenses.  I am also going to sell the 100-400L zoom lens.  If I feel I need to go more specialized for sports yet, I can sell my 85L and use an 85 1.8 if I want to.  I'm still working this out. 

Future purchases will include the 600L II lens, as well as any future 200-400L zoom lens, if it's at least f/4 or wider.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II
« on: August 19, 2012, 06:23:27 PM »
It's not September yet.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Birds with attitude
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:59:52 PM »

Fantastic shot!  Can you share your technical specs with us for that shot?  I'd really be interested to know how you did that!  Thanks.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Survival of the fittest/luckiest
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:07:19 PM »
Nothing bad happened, but a close call.  Imagine getting in your car, putting your seatbelt on, and putting it in gear and looking in your driver's side mirror to discover a 5D Mark III with a 180L lens sitting on the trunk!

Pricewatch Deals / Re: 1D Mark IV in Canon Refurb Store
« on: August 19, 2012, 03:49:38 PM »
Oh just buy it already :)

Ok, Mr. Smarty-Pants,  :P  which would you pick - 1DIV plus 500 II, or 600 II to use with 1D X?

Hahahaha.  After buying the 1DX I'm out of commission on either the 500 or 600!  I'd LOVE to have the 600 though.  Ok, I'll pretend I make enough money to buy either, and yes I agree with you, I'd love to put the 600 on the 1DX.  I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I assume you are saving $$ to buy the 600 vs. another camera?  Secondly, how will you resist the 24-70L II lens?  I cannot, even though I don't need it really, I'm still buying it :)

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk
« on: August 19, 2012, 03:16:34 PM »
The 1DZ (or should that be the 1DY?) is coming soon, folks. Remember, you heard it here first.  8)

Z would of course stand for 'Zenith' but if it's a Y then we can hear the echo of fans reiterating 'Y So Late?'  :P

I will be looking forward to seeing those partially non-mirroless cameras  ;D

Musouka, I have to do it:


Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 172