September 23, 2014, 02:38:25 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 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 172
2296
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Tips, Tricks & Settings
« on: June 25, 2012, 08:13:59 PM »
Yeah

setting the DoF preview button to toggle AI servo is super sweet

Keep in camera noise reduction low or off
make sure lighlight tone priority is off,
turn off all in camera corrections

You forgot that if you do that, make sure to shoot in RAW  ;D

2297
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 08:09:30 PM »
I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

Uh, no. My 70-200 2.8 II is way too short for wildlife, and the 2.8 is unnecessary the majority of the time outside. The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch). I keep the 2.8 for indoor events and people photography mostly which is where it shines.

A 100-400 would be the lens I grab as a complement to my nature hikes and photography. A 1.2 will give me 480 - almost 500 which is very usable for birds (especially on a crop body). Plus I can zoom out for some usable landscape photos.

Each has a best application I find the 70-200 doesn't work well as a wildlife lens but a 100-400 would be a perfect complement to my 16-35.

I was hiking around Mohican State Park with my 100-400L lens all day, then had to swing back into Mansfield for a basketball game, where I used the 70-200L lens.  So yes, I agree with your usages too, there is simultaneous value.

2298
i think the OP wanted to see images indicating example of what all the drama is about relaing to DxO numbers

since this thread has hit 7 pages and no images have come forth it kind of proves what a non event the whole issue is :D

 8)

2299
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 07:51:53 PM »
I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

I own both the 70-200L and the 100-400L.  Of course I'm not worried what you think because I know what I'm doing and you clearly do NOT.

2300
I guess I still can't grasp what this thread is about.  Do you mean that the 5D Mark III's DR is worse than the D800, relatively speaking, OR, that in general, the DR with the 5D Mark III is bad?

2301
Lenses / Re: Prime VS Zooms.
« on: June 25, 2012, 12:07:03 AM »
Not all primes are better than zooms.  For instance, the 24-70L zoom is actually slightly sharper than the, yes, the member of the holy trinity, 35L prime, when stopped down.  I've seen it myself and Bryan Carnathan noticed it as well.  It depends on how high quality the zoom lens is.  No sane person would say the 85 f/1.8 is sharper than the 70-200L II IS zoom lens at 85mm, at f/8.  There are a lot of factors.  Personally, for sports, I NEED the flexibility of the zooms.  A missed shot is worse than a slightly less saturated shot, for example.

2302
EOS Bodies / Re: How would you upgrade?
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:53:23 PM »
This is an easy one.  If you can afford to, buy the 5D Mark III and keep the 40D as backup.  You'll have a great FF and a good 1.6x crop sensor camera.  If I were purchasing new and had the glass I needed, I'd probably buy a 5D Mk III and a 60D backup body, if my budget was $4300-$4500.  But since you ALREADY HAVE the 40D, keep it and get a 5D Mk III.

2303
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Unboxing
« on: June 24, 2012, 09:45:11 PM »
Either that or gag gift somebody.  Get their address and know if they pre-ordered a 1D X and send them a fake box stuffed with styrofoam pellets.  Now that would be classic.

2304
I have not gotten good AF stability with my 50L.  It is frustrating, because I've shot sports with the 85 f/1.2L II and a 1D4 and still had a great keeper rate.  I don't understand this lens.  It has problems that both the 35L and 85L don't have. 

2305
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Unboxing
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:50:22 AM »
I think the only way to make it better, is to actually videotape the UPS guy getting out of the truck with the package, you signing for it, taking it in and opening it up.  Of course when mine arrives, I'd probably be so happy that that actually won't be a joke  ;D

2306
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Hitting Retailers
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:47:05 AM »
If the 1D X is so clean at such high ISO's, I wonder if more people will be able to shoot let's say, night football games with the 300 f/4L vs. the 300 f/2.8L.  Now I know the latter will focus faster in lower light, but it really makes you wonder now, if the more expensive lenses like in my example wouldn't necessarily be needed.  If you are submitting photos to the AP, the subtle differences in IQ would be irrelevent.  Just a thought I had, because I was shooting evening track and field with the 300 f/4L with a 1D4 and I was having no trouble focusing very quickly.  However, the ISO performance required a bit more cleanup than I like :)

2307
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM in Stock at B&H
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:28:58 AM »
$199 = £229 UK

Can't be bothered working out the difference after tax, too depressing

I bought one as I felt it was worth it. In the UK you pay the UK price and that is the price that I judged it on.

I suspect this will be a classic lens, especially on a 1.6 crop

On our 1D4's, we get 52 mm :)  8)

2308
Good move! You can add a Canon EF85mm 1.8 and/or a Canon EF135mm f/2.0 and enjoy taking portraits even more.
(I have 5DII with the above lenses. I admit I use more the 135mmf/2.0 but the 85mm is very value for money)

Enjoy...

I bought an 85 f/1.8 for action shots.  I tested it out yesterday and stopped down beyond f/5.6, I didn't see much difference from the 1.2L; it is tack sharp.

2309
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d Mark iii noise at 1600
« on: June 24, 2012, 12:51:30 AM »
I did my own test at ISO 12,800 with no NR and 100 NR setting in Adobe Camera Raw. 

Photo 1 is no NR, photo 2 with NR.  5D Mark III, with 100-400L lens, 100mm, 1/200s, ISO 12,800, f/8.


2310
EOS Bodies / Re: LightRoom...HELP!
« on: June 23, 2012, 11:56:54 PM »
Wow.

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 172