Messages

1801

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.4 or 40mm 2.8?

« on: July 11, 2012, 12:11:40 PM »

Sigma IQ is going to be less than the 40 or 50 Canon lenses in all likelihood.

1802

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How many people out there are actually going to get the 1DX compared to the 5D3

« on: July 11, 2012, 11:49:07 AM »

Thhe 1DX has so many advantages in terms of ergonomy and reliability i decided amlong time ago i won't use anything else than the 1 series.

All 1D bodies?  Compare your IQ of the 1D Mark IV vs. 5D Mark III.  At ISO 400 and above it's not even close.  The 1DX is likely better, but not all 1D bodies, if that's what you meant. 

1803

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX new all-time low-light king?

« on: July 11, 2012, 11:47:01 AM »

So who's the winner? I'm interested in a camera for street portrait photography. What would be the best thing to use to get great skin tones in Canon lineup? Does the 1Ds Mk III remain the best thing for this?

The 1Ds3 is superior ISO 50-200.  Above 200 the 5D3 is better.

So I went to DXO to check the difference between 5D III and 1Ds III (yes, I heard lot of negative stuff about this web-site) and here what I saw in the results for low ISO measurements:

Dynamic Range: 5D Mark III loses (~2% difference at ISO 100)
SNR: 5D Mark III wins (~3.6% difference at ISO 100)
Tonal Range: 5D Mark III wins (~0.3% difference at ISO 100)
Color Sensitivity: 5D Mark III loses (~0.4% difference at ISO 100)

Looking at those numbers I don't clearly understand why 1Ds Mark III is so superior. Does it handles uncontrolled light better? Or is it about self-convincing? (i.e. a camera that costs 8 grand makes better images as a matter of fact).

Or am I missing something?

Up to iso200
- total lack of noise
- DR
- strong colours
- no banding in the shadows

+8 million.  You are missing something badly.  You went off website specs instead of actually shooting with both and looking at your photos.  Brian is 100% correct on his assessment here.

1804

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 2.8L MKI to tide me over

« on: July 11, 2012, 11:18:59 AM »

I had the 24-70. I wasn't crazy about it so i sold it. Too much distortion, vignetting, and not quite sharp enough. Oh, and 2.8 is too slow for me. I love my 1.4 lenses!

I agree with you except the 35L.  I had both and at 35mm, the 24-70L was slightly sharper than the 35L prime at f/2.8.

1805

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?

« on: July 11, 2012, 11:09:47 AM »

I won't use my 1D X at weddings believe it or not; I'll be taking my two 5D Mark III's because it can perform at a high enough ISO for me and has more resolution.

So it's only because of resolution? Do you crop much?

In fact, I don't know how they could have possibly upgraded the 5D Mark II any more than they did.  I wish it had the color rendition of the 1Ds III at low ISO value.  Maybe I'm just wishing there were a 1Ds Mark IV

Any chance 1Dx has similar color rendition to 1Ds III?

Hey, good questions.  Yes I do crop a lot.  If I can get 22mp vs. 18mp, I'm going to do it.  Yes I know it's only 4mp, but if the option is there for me, why not?  I don't know if the 1D X has as good of color rendition as the 1Ds III from ISO 50 to 200, but I'm thinking it will.  We'll have to see.  I won't know until I get mine or if someone does the direct comparison.  I doubt there is any reason to directly compare the 1D4 to the 1DX because I'm sure we already know the answer to that.

1806

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How many people out there are actually going to get the 1DX compared to the 5D3

« on: July 11, 2012, 10:35:41 AM »

I am just wondering how many people out there can afford and are willing to spend 6800 on a camera? I am not asking if they are using it for a certain purpose just how man people actually purchase 1 Series bodies. I considered getting one before but the longer I wait  the more I think that the 5D Mark III might be for me.

I do a ton of different things, so I will actually have the 5D Mark III and the 1D X.  For college indoor sports this winter, the 1D X will be staple and the 1D 4 will be backup body.

1807

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

« on: July 10, 2012, 11:20:32 PM »

I promise I'll post it, I just haven't slugged through the photos fast enough yet this evening.  I'm on a timeline to get these done 

1808

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?

« on: July 10, 2012, 11:04:06 PM »

Erik,

I'll say one thing.  I deeply wish instead of the 5D3 it had been a 1Ds IV and they didn't "merge" the 1D and 1Ds lines.  I really wish it had been the 1Ds 3 with very high ISO capabilities and auto ISO in manual mode.  Valid points.

Brett

1809

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Auto focus points - The more, the better? I don't think so......

« on: July 10, 2012, 10:25:18 PM »

Hello everyone - To get right to the point....

Auto focus points - Is it me or does it seem that canon has jumped on the bandwagon with an overwhelming amount of auto focus points? 

Honestly, when i'm photographing anything from Seniors to Weddings...engagements...the whole sha-bang, I can't stand using just the center point as many photographers do, but rather I am constantly dialing between all points re-positioning my camera to get the shot. 

(a quick note before low-light photographers jump in on the conversation...When I photograph in low-light situations, the primes come out and I use the AF on the back of the camera (center focus) and hold my focal length in order to focus and re-position)

So, here's my beef...what good is it to have 61 auto focus points when you shoot like me...and use them all the time.  Would I have to dial all through them just to get the focus area and then miss the shot?  Is this a gimmick? Similarly to the Megapixel wars? Just to entice those on the fence?

Before landscapers join in, too... most successful landscape photographers are usually shooting in manual, so please don't bother commenting on how they use all their AF points...because that's BS. 

So, let me recap - landscape photogs shoot in manual or set a "Range" to focus on...low light can focus using the center focus and recompose their shot...weddings photogs either use a focus/Recompose or selective AF points...

Is the 61 AF points really just for those who were suckered into purchasing an expensive camera and can only set it to Automatic? 

One last thing....Please don't mistake my humorous demeanor for the need to respond with erroneous and illegitimate information...I am honestly curious how other photographers feel about useless AF Points.

Thx.

J

Oh my you don't understand how these other AF points work.  Go shoot sports with a 5D Mark III with either a 50L or 85L prime on it and you'll learn very quickly why they matter, and what each type (vertical and horizontal) does. 

1810

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?

« on: July 10, 2012, 10:23:19 PM »

My Mark II 1Ds  is ten years Old  I Will be on a whole new planet  With  iso From hell  !!!!!!!

Lord Gary, here this whole time I thought you were still shooting film

1811

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?

« on: July 10, 2012, 10:22:19 PM »

For those of you who have purchased a 1D X, I'm curious as to why?  What makes it worth it to you? 

For me it was a combination of mild disappointment with the 5D3 spec and the desire (and ability) to have the best I could.

Don't get me wrong, I think the 5D3 is an exceptional machine, but I wanted a bit more from a 5D2 upgrade and the 1Dx fits the bill.  It is a no-compromise system with a pro build, the absolute best AF system available and the best ISO performance as well.

I was saving for the 5D3 and had a bit of a windfall that allowed me to reach a bit higher.  I considered the 5D3 when introduced, but it wasn't enough to sway me.

What other upgrades were you looking for when you went away from the 5D II and were considering a 5D III?  For me, the AF improvements (drastic), plus being able to do AUTO ISO in manual mode at all possible ISO values, HDR, and Multi-Exposure, I'm not sure what else there would be as an "upgrade" without completely crossing into a different camera line.  In fact, I don't know how they could have possibly upgraded the 5D Mark II any more than they did.  I wish it had the color rendition of the 1Ds III at low ISO value.  Maybe I'm just wishing there were a 1Ds Mark IV  

1812

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?

« on: July 10, 2012, 07:02:54 PM »

I have two 5D Mark III's that I use extensively.  I print big pictures for people and I can tell the difference between 22mp and 18mp.  The 5D3 performs superbly at high ISO's, whereas the 1Ds III didn't.  The autofocus is very fast.

I also am buying the 1D X.  Why?  Well, shooting indoor basktball with my 1D Mark IV makes it very difficult to shoot at ISO 3200 and 6400 without a lot of post-processing NR.  I need that feature, because I waste a lot of time applying NR.  Imagine getting pressure to jpeg your photos to your laptop and then send them on.  I can do that hopefully with the 1D X with no or minimal NR processing.  Obviously the shutter lag and fps is superior to the 1D 4. 

So both cameras fit my needs.  I won't use my 1D X at weddings believe it or not; I'll be taking my two 5D Mark III's because it can perform at a high enough ISO for me and has more resolution.  The 1D X is going to all sports/action with 1D 4 for backup.  Why not the 5D3 for backup at sports you may ask?  5D 3 doesn't have spot metering at active AF point which is very, very useful during sports believe it or not.  It can make the difference between a properly exposed player vs. silhoutted player. 

As you can see, they both have strengths and weaknesses.  Is the 1D X really worth $6800?  Well, I don't know, but remember the 1Ds III in 2007 retailed for $7999.  Even worse, so did the 1Ds II in 2005!  So yes it probably is worth it.

BOTH cameras will do AUTO ISO in full manual mode.  I believe the 1D X will let you shoot in Av mode, minimum shutter speed, auto ISO, and access to exposure compensation, all 4.  I've tried that on my 1D Mark IV so there are advantages to 1D bodies. 

1813

Lenses / Re: How much for a used Canon 200mm f/2.0L IS?

« on: July 10, 2012, 02:48:07 PM »

I got one at B&H 6mo ago 5,700 love it !!

B&H's next shipment is estimated for July 31.  I've had mine on pre-order for awhile now and can't wait to get it. 

1814

Lenses / Re: How much for a used Canon 200mm f/2.0L IS?

« on: July 10, 2012, 01:53:51 PM »

Lowest I've seen is $5000-$5500.

1815

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX new all-time low-light king?

« on: July 10, 2012, 01:51:50 PM »

No longer just mine:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41976502

and big shocker.... he gets the same thing 

(note that he did not normalize for ISO or MP so the 1DX and 5D2 look a bit better on that chart compared to the 5D3 than they do in reality, particularly note that the 5D3 DOES beat the 5D2 for high iso DR once you shift the 5D2 chart to account for it rating ISOs differently)

his charts shows that they did improve high ISO DR a lot in the 1DX though so it won't fall behind in DR there compared to D3s or D4, so yeah, ignoring a bit of color-blindness  , the 1DX should be all time low light king with probably about tied for best DR at high ISO (with D3s and D4) and best luminance SNR (perhaps by 1/3 stop maybe 1/2 stop over D4???) and with many more MP than D3s (making 'grain' look much better and allowing for more NR while maintaining the same detail).

So who's the winner? I'm interested in a camera for street portrait photography. What would be the best thing to use to get great skin tones in Canon lineup? Does the 1Ds Mk III remain the best thing for this?

The 1Ds3 is superior ISO 50-200.  Above 200 the 5D3 is better.