October 26, 2014, 03:00:14 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 ... 135 136 [137] 138 139 ... 174
2041
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?

2042
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?

2043
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.

2044
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.

2045
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?

2046
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.

2047
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!

2048
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!

2049
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)

2050
EOS Bodies / Re: Sell 5D2 for a 1Ds 3
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:55:06 AM »
Quasimodo this is interesting, I am hearing focus problems with the 1Ds3 and this isnt what I want to hear, but what your saying is good news to me!

Louis,

There is no problems with AF on the 1Ds3.  The problem isn't microadjustment either; it's the inferior focusing ability of the 5D2 vs. 1Ds3.  I've shot sports with the 85L with a 1D Mark IV and had no problems, whereas with the 5D2 I had some OOF shots more often.  The 1Ds3 AF ability is SUPERIOR and probably is just as good as the 1D4 in my experience.

2051
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Packing list for trip of a lifetime
« on: July 17, 2012, 12:12:57 AM »
I'd bring the 16-35, 24-70 and 100-400, and I'd leave the 70-200 at home.

Also, any suggestions/personal experiences on an underwater camera/housing for a small point and shoot possibly?

Try gopro HD2

+1.  On vacations like this you cannot bring extra lenses, and you need all the flexibility you can get.  Zoom lenses are the way to go.  I would actually do the same, 16-35, 24-70, 100-400.  If only you had the 24-105L lens.  Then you could go 16-35, 24-105, 100-400 and really do it all.  No need for a 50 prime when you have the 24-70 f/2.8L lens.  Oh well, this is just my opinion.

2052
EOS Bodies / Re: Sell 5D2 for a 1Ds 3
« on: July 16, 2012, 11:24:39 PM »
I was so tempted to buy a used one for around 3K.  It only had 10K clicks on it.

I did buy one for about 3k and we did an EOS utility shutter count and it was around there, 10k.  Ended up getting dust on the sensor the first outting (very hot and windy and had to change lenses a few times) so since it's under warranty and it's gone right now, at Canon for a cleaning  >:(

2053
At low speed and reasonable ISO, the 5D3 has essentially the same image performance as the 5D2... so why not continue offering a 5D2 at $2k... perhaps migrate to a 60D style body and cut the production cost.... add some arbitrary firmware, a tilt screen and built in flash to make it more attractive.

Maybe in a year you can offer a plastic model using the 5D3's sensor (but that strikes me as improbable.)

The thing is to sell lenses not bodies. It's lenses that keep your customers loyal.

It'll probably end up being more of a 5D Mark II with a DIGIC V.

2054
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4
« on: July 16, 2012, 10:04:35 PM »
To be quite frank, the 50 f/1.4 is a better lens than the 50 f/1.8 II.  It's background blur is better, slightly sharper stopped down (even sharper than the 1.2L stopped down f/4 and narrower!), and better build quality.  I have both and yes the 1.4 focusing is faster than the 1.8 II.  $369 actually isn't terrible considering this lens should really be a 50mm f/1.4L lens (sans L-series build quality).  You'll love the lens, I just don't know if you'll love spending the money.

2055
Lenses / Re: 20mm f/2.8 vs. 28mm f/1.8
« on: July 16, 2012, 09:57:49 PM »
Free literature:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-20mm-f-2.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Take the reviews with a grain of salt:  this is a pro review.  I have heard that the 28 performs better, both perform better on crop vs. FF, but they take pictures that are good enough.  Look around on flickr as they have pages devoted to specific lenses.

Pages: 1 ... 135 136 [137] 138 139 ... 174