February 01, 2015, 06:51:58 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 ... 139 140 [141] 142 143 ... 176
EOS Bodies / Re: Cancelled 1dx pre order.
« on: July 15, 2012, 04:09:09 PM »
That's a good answer.  The 5D Mark III actually did open opportunities for me, really a lot for wedding photography and low-light photography.  In these situations, I really need the auto ISO in manual mode and in some cases it's nice to have in-camera HDR and ME.  I've been using those features quite a bit lately.  I was a 5D Mark II user, so yes, the Mark III improved my photographic opportunities quite a bit.

The 1Ds III, while brilliant, doesn't do well at high ISO's compared to the 5D Mark III.  However, it does much better at low ISO's than the 5D Mark III.  Both cameras are high resolution, so that pair teams up really well for me.

The 1D Mark IV I love because of faux M mode, and the fps, along with build and active AF spot-metering.  It's a great camera for action and sports.  I also very much enjoy the 1.3x crop factor.

And last but not least, when I get the 1D X, again, it makes sense for me.  Higher ISO capabilities vs. the 1D Mark IV at sports and indoor action, will be a giant upgrade.  The two pair very well together, as with the 1D Mark IV I can reach farther and with the 1D X I can shoot at higher shutter speeds in lower light. 

All bases and opportunities covered.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 50D vs 7D
« on: July 15, 2012, 03:42:41 PM »
This really doesn't weigh in the argument here, but I thought I'd share for some perspective.  While the 7D is a great APS-C camera, actually if you look at all cameras available right now, at comparable pricing, the 1Ds Mark II actually has greater IQ than the 7D.  I owned the 7D but sold it when I got the 5D Mark III, but I noticed that on ebay the 1Ds Mark II, in pretty good shape, was selling for the same price as that of a new 7D.  The IQ is superior and at least in my experience, color rendition and saturation is similar to the 1Ds Mark III.  However, I think it should be.  It was once a flagship model retailing for $7999 in 2005.  My point is that many reviews and myself seeing this, would attest to the fact that regarding IQ, the 50D to 7D upgrade is a pretty soft upgrade and not likely necessary.  However, if I had the 30D or 40D, I'd upgrade in a hearbeat. 

Going to FF from a 50D would be an individual matter.  Now you loose the 1.6x crop factor reach.  Consider this review:



EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 50D vs 7D
« on: July 15, 2012, 01:31:08 AM »
I think a 40D to a 7D upgrade would be easy to justify.  I just can't in my mind, say that about the 50D to 7D upgrade.  I'm liking a few of the other posts on here that are in agreement.  Probably best to keep the 50D and buy a new lens.  Good luck!

Lenses / Re: Looking for travel zoom
« on: July 15, 2012, 12:13:40 AM »
Thanks I am bringing the 5d mark iii with 24-105, 50mm 1.4 and 270 exii. Just considering the 28mm is or 40mm pancake. Otherwise going with just that. I find the reach would be nice but my Sony nex and 55-210 will cover that. Just considering the 28mm as a cheaper alternative to the 35l not sure I will need it here.

For a vacation I'm not sure you need a prime if you have the 24-105mm L.  Sure, take the 50 f/1.4 along with it, as it's nice to have, but I really think if you need below 35mm I'd just use my 24-105L zoom.  It has good IQ at the shorter focal lengths, so I think with your current gear you're all set.  Go have fun.

Lenses / Re: Which L lens will be the first mark III?
« on: July 15, 2012, 12:05:49 AM »
I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.
See for yourself. The L zoom is sharper than the L prime.

Yes.  The 70-200L II IS lens at 200mm is sharper than the 200mm f/2.8L lens, but not the 200mm f/2L lens. 

Lenses / Re: 100-300mm F/4 ???
« on: July 15, 2012, 12:04:12 AM »
Marketing.  Look at it this way.  The 70-200L II IS lens was running about $2500 at one time and sometimes you can find it for around $2200 right now.  Figure on the 100-400L to be $1399-$1599.  These prices we're figuring over the last 2 years now. 

Add in a 100-300 f/4L, and that isn't going to be as cheap as the 100-400 and probably a little cheaper than the 70-200L.  So if I need a good zoom, I'm going to purchase the 100-400L for the cheapest and get more focal lengths covered.  Throw in the 70-300L lens and now a 100-300L will never sell and that's exactly why there isn't one.

Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 14, 2012, 07:56:55 PM »
I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod.  The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight.  You twist the camera to vertical in the  tripod collar.

IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong.  Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod.  If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.

Yes it has turned out to be a great lens.  I know I don't need IS when it's on a tripod because I shut it off.  No problems.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My Canon EOS-1D X Has Arrived!
« on: July 14, 2012, 04:54:21 PM »
Perhaps the camera was for his wife, complete with the latest Vuitton camera bag

His camera was a Nikon 3200 ::) ::) ::)

I could use that excuse.  "I bought the camera for YOU honey."  Then disappear with it for hours on end.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to proceed?
« on: July 14, 2012, 04:53:16 PM »
That and with the 5D Mark III you can do full auto ISO in manual mode.  This actually is a great benefit to novice photographers.  Later, you can do in-camera HDR and Multi-Exposure.  That and the advanced AF system this is worth the additional cost already.

However, regarding IQ, the 5D Mark II is great, so maybe that and expensive L lens would really be the way to go.  I don't know.

I'm surprised nobody in here ever complained about using the 85L or any other fast primes! In bright daylight with those lenses the back AF points turn greyish/cream color, almost invisible since the brigheter lenses bring in a  lot more light.

The red dont even bother turning it on in daylight since with those primes 99% of times you wont even see the difference when it's lit up!

1.  Yes, I'm surprised nobody complained too.  Give it time.
2.  Maybe Canon should go to bright flluorescent green AF points from now on.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 50D vs 7D
« on: July 14, 2012, 03:59:16 PM »
I currently own

Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L is
Sigma 17-50 2.8
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 580 EX II

I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 7D.   Part of the reason is for the much better focusing system for action shots of wildlife.

I am also wondering if there will be any significant improvement in ISO performance from the 50D, or would a better option would be to invest in glass.

Thank you for any advice.

Ah yes.  I consider the 50D to 7D one of those tough decisions.  Yes, the 7D overall probably is better, but the 50D is already so good it will be very hard to justify the upgrade.  No signficant improvement in ISO I'd say, just look at Bryan Carnathan's website.  If you're 50D is not that old, I personally wouldn't make the move.  The only improvement I'd make from 50D would be to either FF or a newer APS-C camera that has not come out yet.  That's just what I would do.  Get some good glass.

The 5D Mark III by itself is a much, much more powerful tool than the 5D Mark II and 7D combined.  If you know how to use it (which most critics do NOT) you would know this.  If you are complaining about a black AF point, you really have problems to begin with in your photography anyways, so the differences between these cameras would be a non-issue.

Ah, another person who doesn't understand the meaning of 'sarcasm'. Sorry, was just poking some light-hearted humor at the "problem" at hand. (sigh) I guess that I don't know how to use my equipment so I should just keep my posts to myself.

Or better yet... maybe some 5D3 owners out there, some of them happen to be "REAL photographiers", who are having a REAL issue with this. Or maybe this is kind of like those who compalined of a "soft focus" issue with the 7D. Plenty of people scoffed at the "problem" and said it wasn't real and that it was a user issue and not a hardware issue. Google it and see how many people had the same "problem".  My own 7D had the same issue until I sent it in for an adjustment (under warranty), and now it works fine. Or maybe I just happened to "learn" how to take a photo in the week they had my Camera. (sigh again)

How about spreading some of your "wisdom" and help those who are having this issue instead of telling them that their skills "suck"? (my words)

Hmmmm.  ::)


Ok, fair enough.  I didn't realize you were being sarcastic.  I'm big enough of a person to remove my post then, and apologize.  I'm sorry.  Your skills obviously don't suck and that isn't what I intended to say, but nonetheless, the post is gone.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 macro question (Possible Noobish)
« on: July 14, 2012, 12:50:59 AM »
I think you're too close.  You're within the minimum focusing distance. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 14, 2012, 12:37:15 AM »
Can you do the test?

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 13, 2012, 11:01:39 PM »
yeah true. The last "presentable" EF-S zoom was in 2009 and except for the 60mm macro there is not a single EF-S prime (probably does not make business sense either).

I wish may be someday canon will bring out EF-S 55-135/150mm f/2.8.

That's actually excellent.  Now that you mention it, does someone have a 7D and a 60mm lens, and a FF camera with a 100mm lens.  Then we could do subtle comparisons regarding view and prespective.  That would be a great test (only an effective 4mm difference). 

Pages: 1 ... 139 140 [141] 142 143 ... 176