November 01, 2014, 05:56:08 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 ... 104 105 [106] 107 108 ... 174
1576
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  It was a great camera in its time, but has been outdated by technology.


1577
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.

1578
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  :) :) :)

1579
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 :)

1580
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.

1581
Animal Kingdom / Re: Birds with attitude
« on: August 20, 2012, 04:13:19 PM »
THANK YOU!

1582
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.

1583
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.

1584
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.

1585
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.

1586
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. 

1587
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.

1588
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.

1589
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.

1590
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!!!

Pages: 1 ... 104 105 [106] 107 108 ... 174