April 19, 2014, 01:18:31 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 ... 123 124 [125] 126 127 ... 162
1861
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:06:04 AM »
There's nothing magical about it........


........If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.

Daniel, as much as I respect you as a person and a photographer (and I do) that photo proves nothing.  The 50 f/1.4 for all we know could have taken the exact same photo.  If I shoot out in daylight at low ISO on a 1Ds3 or 5D3, my photos from the two lenses are exactly the same.  There is no $1100 difference.  I'll agree with you that the 50L lens is sharper 1.2 to 2, but beyond that it isn't.  Low to mid ISO the 1.4 lens performs just as well, which is why everyone is questionning the price.  Most pros that I know prefer the 24-70L zoom lens over any of Canon's 50's.  I personally like 50mm, so I own all 3, but I'll be the first to admit the 50L was way overpriced.  I will probably keep it because I like the build quality.

1862
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:46:44 PM »
Not from me.  I have the 50 f/1.2L and will probably sell it.  It's not worth the extra money and outdoors at low ISO the 50 f/1.4 color rendition is actually slightly better, especially on my 1Ds 3.  There's nothing magical about it particularly, and side-by-side images, even wide, aren't any different to me.  Another point, stopped down narrower than f/4, both the 1.4 and 1.8 lens are sharper, which matters to me.  I've been told I'm wrong on this point yet I see it in my images, and Bryan Carnathan's charts show what I get.  The 50 f/1.2L is a specialty lens from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  After that, the 1.4 matches it or does slightly better, and this is well documented in all reviews of the lenses.

If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.  But narrower, there are actually better lenses.

1863
I would be interested to see the 1Dmk4 added into the mix

I think we know what the outcome would be...  :-*

I agree that that would be a more relevant comparison.  Afterall, Canon stated itself that the 1DX replaces the 1Ds3 and 1D4.  When I get my 1DX, there will be a full review/comparison among the 3 cameras. 

I got a notification from B&H today about shipping and in my zeal to obtain the 1DX, it wasn't the camera that was being shipped, but rather a lens that I forgot about that was backordered :).

1864
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:24:47 PM »
I wonder why Canon sales are much, much higher than Nikon's?

Not sure I'd put 2 "much-es" in that statement.

You're ruining my bait :).  I'm waiting on a lecture of how the D800 sales blasted the 5D Mark III sales (whether true or not, I'm waiting for the lecture nonetheless).

1865
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:22:11 PM »
That and a supertele lens.

Repeats to self...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that (except maybe the 24-70/2.8 II)...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that...

I will be there like a Catholic nun to rap your knuckles as you go to click the "Buy" button on B&H's website for the 24-70L II lens. 

1866
You are a wedding photographer. If you feel strongly about APS-H, then explain how it would be superior for your profession to the 5DIII which Canon targeted specifically to wedding photographers (among others). If you can build a compelling case as to why APS-H would give you something you can't get and need with the 5DIII, then that would add to the conversation.

An APS-H body is a great complementary body to shoot with full frame
I would much rather shoot a 16-35 f2.8L II on an APS-H body (20mm to 46mm) than the current 24-70 on full frame coupled with a full frame body and 85 f1.4 you can shoot pretty much everything
I cant wait to see the new 24-70 to see if it can make this reason for using APS-H at weddings redundant
even though sometimes i find the 24mm wide end a little tight however now I have the 20mm voigtlander pancake this can be quite easily solved for those select shots where I want to go to 20mm

IMO I would not pay someone to shoot my wedding with an APS-C camera

My 1D Mark IV is fantastic at outdoor track and field.  I can take a 300mm lens and put it on and get 390mm.  Too far?  Unscrew the camera and slap on a 5D Mark III.  It's great.

1867
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:47:52 PM »
I wonder why Canon sales are much, much higher than Nikon's?

1868
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:13:19 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did??  I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II.  IQ wasn't one of them.  I'm not getting your point?

It looks like you are content with 5D2's IQ. Others like myself are not. My point is that people are showing their denial and even blaming DxO for not giving their 5D3 a good IQ score. The fact remains, IQ wise(which I personally consider the HEART of a camera), 5D3 has no improvement, thus a failure in my opinion. That is not to say that good photographers cannot take awesome shots. They have and will continue to do so.

I wonder what you did back in the 2001-2002 era when these sensors and cameras were unheard of.  Photography I suppose was just all crap?

1869
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:10:36 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

You mean the banding that has been in every Canon camera since 2005?
The banding that has just gotten worse instead of the dynamic range of the sensors increasing?
The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
That banding?

We are not comparing 5D3 to powershots and coolpixes. The benchmark is now D800/E. 5D3's DR is blown out and away by D800/E in IQ department. Even NEXes blow Canon sensors away. Interesting seeing the denial.

Do you own a 5D Mark II or III?  Have you ever?  Do you own a D800/E?  Have you ever?  If so, thanks for your valuable opinions.  If not, at least we know you can read reviews.

1870
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:24:22 PM »
5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice? 

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ.  That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else, instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).

Since I qualify to say it, and I wasn't going to go there but you MADE me :), my RAW images out of the 5D Mark III seem to have better IQ than my 5D Mark II RAW's.  The shadows are much better.  JPEGS even better.  IQ of JPEGS is actually noticeable to a non-photographer.  Not at all saying 5D Mark II had bad IQ, we all know it is excellent.  This is a subjective comparison.

1871
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:19:49 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did??  I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II.  IQ wasn't one of them.  I'm not getting your point?

1872
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:10:35 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

1873
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4
« on: July 17, 2012, 12:34:07 PM »
You know I was thinking, since I've become such a 50mm junkie, just because I might get the macro lens, to have 4 of the lenses.  However, I don't think I have the wallet to buy the f/1.0L!  I saw a copy on ebay for $4999!

At one time I was considering buy a Canon 7 With the dream machine 50mm F/0.95 off evil bay. Its so awesome. 8)

Wow.  Funny thing is, you can find that stuff on ebay surprisingly easily!

1874
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4
« on: July 17, 2012, 11:47:39 AM »
You know I was thinking, since I've become such a 50mm junkie, just because I might get the macro lens, to have 4 of the lenses.  However, I don't think I have the wallet to buy the f/1.0L!  I saw a copy on ebay for $4999!

1875
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:58:24 AM »
50mm 1.2 > 50mm 1.4 > 50mm 1.8  8)

$1499 > $369 > $119   8)

Pages: 1 ... 123 124 [125] 126 127 ... 162