January 25, 2015, 11:29:03 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 ... 137 138 [139] 140 141 ... 176
2071
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.

2072
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?

2073
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 S___ty 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?

2074
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 S___ty 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.

2075
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.

2076
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 S___ty 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?

2077
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 S___ty 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.

2078
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!

2079
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!

2080
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)

2081
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.

2082
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.

2083
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  >:(

2084
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.

2085
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.

Pages: 1 ... 137 138 [139] 140 141 ... 176