September 02, 2014, 03:44:46 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 ... 119 120 [121] 122 123 ... 171
1801
Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
« on: August 04, 2012, 11:22:02 AM »
I think in your particular case the 24-105L is the clear winner.  If you follow the suggestions of the other zoom lenses, you're stuck with APS-C and can't go FF.

1802
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D MKIV VS 5D MKIII Cameras
« on: August 04, 2012, 11:19:38 AM »
It does really depend on your use.  for wildlife where you are focal length limited, the 1D MK IV is the one to get.  For low light and general usage, the 5D MK III edges it out.
Its a hard choice, and comes down to how you use it.

Exactly.  It's hard to be a pro and stay specific to one area.  You'd never make enough money.  So I can see why a lot do studio work and photojournalism.  In that case, you almost have to have two cameras.  My first combo was 5D Mark III and 1D Mark IV.  I used the 5D3 for weddings and the 1D4 for track.  I just had to.

1803
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D MKIV VS 5D MKIII Cameras
« on: August 04, 2012, 09:50:43 AM »
If only one, I'd go with the 5D3.  Higher mp's, better IQ, and AF system advanced enough that if you're using center point, it can track as fast as the 1D4 in outdoor daytime sports. 

1804
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D battery overvoltage
« on: August 03, 2012, 08:12:19 PM »
Since the 1 series cameras have their battery voltage at 11.1 and the 5 series at 7.2, has anyone been crazy enough to say rewire a 5D grip to alter the batteries in series and overvolt the camera for faster framerates?

There are more consequences of adding voltage than faster frame rates.  So there's no way I'd even consider doing that.  $3500 is a lot of money.

1805
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 1D4
« on: August 03, 2012, 06:22:44 PM »
What is wrong? Do you understand the word "accuracy"? All points works at 2.8, but AF accuracy is different.

I don't think you have the definitions/understanding.  DOUBLE Cross type is different than cross type.  You have more cross types in the 1DX than the 1D4.  That's the whole point of the camera.  It's much better in AF.

1806
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 1D4
« on: August 03, 2012, 01:22:17 PM »
I meant precision of 2.8 have only 5 points. Isn`t it? Only 5 from 61. In 1d4 was 39 from 45.

I don't think that's correct.  Hang on, let me check my manual, but I believe according to Bryan's review, this isn't correct.

1807
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 03, 2012, 01:20:06 PM »
This is not true  :)  Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

Something fishy going on there.  The only in-camera NR setting that affects the RAW file is the long exposure NR (because that subtracts a dark frame from the image). White balance, high ISO NR, picture style, ALO, etc., have no effect on the RAW image, although they do put flags in the metadata that alter the settings preselected when you open the image in DPP and many other converters.

I was using a light image viewer (Irfan View, 1.5 Mb + CRW plugin). Try it yourself if you want.

Your info is correct, but not what we were talking about.  We know that WB doesn't matter in RAW, what we were pointing out is the fact that shooting under proper WB, such as Tungsten, the 5D3 has a slight green hue in the shadows.  The 1DX doesn't.  You cannot fix this green hue, seemingly caused by WB but maybe not, in post.  Myself and another photographer have noticed this.  Sorry I was not clearer on this point in my post.

On the other hand, the 5D3's Tungsten WB is LESS "green" than the 1DX's Tungsten WB.  However, this issue can quickly be resolved via color temp.  Another point I was not clear on.  The problem therefore, is with the 5D3, not the 1DX.

1808
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 03, 2012, 12:07:46 PM »
It's most certainly Camera RAW program, which I figured.  It's not the camera.

1809
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 03, 2012, 11:58:48 AM »
Here's one thing I can say.  If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%.  If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can.

When you shoot in RAW it does not matter what WB setting you shoot in.  This is simply a preset that communicates to present the JPG rendition or is communicated to editing software to get you close to true neutral grey.

If you shoot in RAW the information in the data file is the same regardless of WB setting.  Much like the NR settings, sharpness settings and picture styles don't matter.  That's the point of RAW.... you have it all there to work with.... ;)

This is not true  :)  Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

Thank you!  This is what I observed too.  I shot Cloudy for both, and obviously got the wrong color.  Ok.  I set to Tungsten in Camera RAW, 1dx was green, 5d3 wasn't.  Next, I shoot in Tungsten WB in camera, 1Dx is correct, 5D3 looks green.  Go figure.

1810
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 03, 2012, 10:55:22 AM »
It may be way better than the 5D3...

Oh, there's no question.  The 1D X is way better than the 5DIII...  Flash back a few years to how the 1DsIII had 'better color rendition' and 'better low ISO performance' and 'whatever' compared to the 5DII, despite the 5DII having a better sensor (according to Canon's white paper on the 5DII/50D).  The theme is the same - there are lots of features that make the 1D X better, but if your main criterion is IQ, you'll save a lot of $/£/€ by getting a 5DIII.

Ok.  I agree with this.  If IQ is similar, then the 1DX is better overall, over all aspects.  I also agree with the finer detail comment by wocka, I saw this myself in a few landscape shots.  I think the less 4mp is probably not an issue.  Only difference with the 1Ds3 is that camera had 21mp.  Perhaps not an issue.  Thanks.  I still would like to a do a macro shot of a flower with both and see the detail comparison. 

1811
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera Crossroads :)
« on: August 03, 2012, 10:51:01 AM »
Well, since yes, things have changed for me and it looks like it'll be a full sports contract for a university this whole school year.  I have ONE wedding on November 3, which by this time I'll have to cut all weddings out.  My question is whether I will need the 5D3 at all.  Or should I keep the 1D4 and pickup another 1DX.  I refuse to use the 1D4 for indoor sports if the 1DX is in my kit, I mean why not?  I don't need the reach but I do need the high ISO capabilities.  Outdoors, at low ISO though, I can use the reach.  I always carry two bodies, so my decision will be two 1DX's with either 1. 5D3, or 2. 1D4.  It is certain the one of my 5D3's and the 1Ds3 has to go.  Maybe the 1DX is so good I only need the 1DX and 1D4, two bodies.  Of course then I would only bring one body to volleyball, basketball, wrestling, and indoor track.  I'm thinking the 1DX is an okay replacement for the 5D3 even in resolution.  That's what I'm trying to determine.  It appears as though, when you take shots of say a wheat field, the detail is greater from the 1DX whereas the 5D3 seems to sort of blend the grass blades together.  This is irrelevent in sports though.

I'll probably at first keep a 1DX, a 1D4, and a 5D3 and if I need to do anything else later I will.  I will not be shooting tennis with a 1DX, way too loud.

1812
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 03, 2012, 10:06:34 AM »
I've the 1DX and 5D3 and within the ISO ranges of 400-51200 the 1DX smacks the 5D3 with a big wet comedy fish.

And those are the real ranges to test. I'm fed up seeing the 'here's the picture I took with both, what do you think' posts.

I've shot 5 weddings, some 8000 frames in total with the 1DX, almost the same number as the 5D3 and there is so much more than iso range that's an improvement. The Auto White Balance for one is superb. No real white balance corrections to do in post.

The images have miles more clarity to them too, despite losing 4 mp I can retrieve detail I could only dream of with the 5D3, the hair on peoples heads and pollen on flowers being good examples.

ISO1600 - F5 - 1/160



I'm tired of reading "1D-body syndrome" claims whereby the 1DX just destroys the 5D3.  I have seen absolutely NO image ever so far, where this is true, including yours.  Look at Bryan Carnathan's review even.  He says the same thing.  Can you show us please?  We know you think the 1DX is the greatest thing ever, but why?  Can someone please put two photos together to show this?  I cannot.  I've pushed each camera to their limits and I can see no IQ advantage at all.  It may be way better than the 5D3, but can someone show us?

1813
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 02, 2012, 11:27:59 PM »
Here's one thing I can say.  If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%.  If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can.  Interesting.  It's probably Camera RAW though and not the camera itself, I'm guessing.  What else was interesting, is that when I shot in Cloudy and processed the 5D3 image to Tungsten, it corrected almost there.  The 1DX didn't come close as it was rather green tinted.  This is just interesting playing with these RAW files.

Highlights still can blow in the 1DX images, but not as easily as in the 5D Mark III.  And yeah, it seems the shadows look better from the 5D3 vs. the 1DX, although I suppose that could be from cropping and having less MP's.  Tomorrow I won't crop one of them and examine this. 

1814
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 02, 2012, 11:07:28 PM »
Thanks.  My last test will not push either camera.  I will take both to the car show this weekend and we can just casually examine each photo and maybe reach a conclusion or not.  Pushing the cameras is hard to do and it's doubly hard to see any differences in performance with two very high performers anyways. 

It is kind of frustrating because if you remember when the 1Ds Mark III was new you COULD push each camera and see a huge difference as the 1Ds3 just outperformed everything at the time.  Oh well, I think each are great and seem to have their places for use.

I promised you low ISO so I'll do some car show photos but I also want to test the green hue/shadow issue I've noticed on the 5D Mark III in the shade at high sun.

1815
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: August 02, 2012, 10:38:02 PM »
In these harsh conditions, both camera's photos are equally awful and I don't see any enhanced performance of one or the other.  At least with minimal processing I can't.  I don't think the determing factor for any sane person is going to be high ISO or IQ differences, because they just don't exist.  Speed, shutter durability, AF-point linked spot metering = 1DX.  High MP, high ISO, price = 5D Mark III.

I just am not going to find anything.  I mean, we can argue that the shadows are cleaner on the 1DX or we can pull more detail out of the 5D3's shadows, etc., but it's not significant enough.  The last test will have to be low ISO's, where we saw more green hueing in the shadow areas when people, on a sunny day, were standing in the shade, on the 5D Mark III.  I want to see if the 1DX does this or not.

Pages: 1 ... 119 120 [121] 122 123 ... 171