December 18, 2014, 02:49:19 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 ... 153 154 [155] 156 157 ... 174
DR is less than the D800/D800E. 
Half the MP's as the D800
It's too heavy
The AF system is too cumbersome and complicated
DxO rated it lower than the D800 (future complaint)

Set Safety Shift - Enable, ISO
Av = 6.3
ISO = Auto
Enable Shutter speed range,
Min 500
Max 8000

Worked fantastic.  Wish the 5D III had this feature.  Thanks for the great tip.

The 1D4 is a great camera that has many advanced features that are not obvious from the spec sheet. Until you start shooting with one the gap between a 1 series and the rest is not obvious that difference is very significant.

Other features worth exploring is the constant AF and setting the low speed continuous to 6fps (or whatever suits you). I find I get more keepers this way - but I am shooting slower, more predictable animals.

I have a ton of games I can practice this with, so yes, I plan on getting creative  :)  It's amazing how much detail and color saturation this camera has, even despite the bad press about the APS-H sensor it received (16mp too).  I don't see a difference.  I cropped quite a ways and with a bit of NR, looked just as smooth as the 5D Mk III.

Yeah, the 50L is definitely worth the money if you can afford it, I have no bad feelings about buying this lens, it's definitely the most used lens I have too, among quite a few nice ones. I still hope they release a new version soon that has a slightly different design. But, I must say, shooting with it on the 5D3 is far different (better) than shooting with it on the 5D2. But, I never had too many problems with the 5D2 either. It's a very dreamy lens, that the other Canon 50s cannot compare to really. It's sharp, plenty sharp enough at f/8, but you don't really buy this sort of f/1.2 lens to judge it at f/8, as it is, it's fine enough there. It's still the best at f/1.2 to f/2.2 or so. And that's like where I shoot with this lens about 99% of the time.

Exactly.  You have to buy TWO 50mm primes to get the best sharpness across all apertures, vs. ONE each at 35mm and 85mm.  And why would you shoot at f/1.2 to f/2.2 at a wedding?  Remember, this thread is about weddings.  So judging it at f/8 is more than justified.  If I need a sharp image f/2.8 and narrower, to get the BEST sharpness, I will not choose the 50L.  I use my 50L for indoor close ups and night street shots.  I use my 50 f/1.4 for outside daytime shots or any shot f/2.8 and narrower.

Again, we're talking WEDDINGS.  There is no reason ever, to shoot at f/1.6 at a wedding, unless you want a person's nose in sharp focus and their face blurry.  I've shot weddings and I cannot for the life of me remember when I shot wider than f/2.8.  The ring shot maybe?  Ok, maybe, but I sure as hell didn't use a 50mm lens for the ring shots, I used my 85L.  For weddings it just doesn't make sense.  The 24-70L or 50 f/1.4 is better for weddings.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 1D X - ISO test + RAW files
« on: June 26, 2012, 11:42:39 AM »
likely to generate long threads full of flames, trolls, and endless - and pointless - discussion and churn.

4.  not pertaining to DxO in any matter

Set Safety Shift - Enable, ISO
Av = 6.3
ISO = Auto
Enable Shutter speed range,
Min 500
Max 8000

Worked fantastic.  Wish the 5D III had this feature.  Thanks for the great tip.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X - June 20, 2012 in Japan
« on: June 25, 2012, 09:23:49 PM »
Maybe someone can answer this question.  If Canon has, in fact, distributed this camera to specified folks in preparation for the Olympics, why hasn't someone taken the camera and done some serious work in evaluating it?  DPReview, I would think, would have gotten one to evaluate by now.....just wondering....I ordered mine back in December from Hunts and just pre-paid the entire amount so that I could go on the 'A' list, which has me #10 to receive my camera when they get them....they are not predicting when they will get them but they did say that they think that they will have them soon, like by July.

I'm guessing because people are full of crap.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 09:22:17 PM »
still though, it would be nice to see a replacement.

Not push/pull?  I could go for that feature.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Get the 60d or wait for the 70d?
« on: June 25, 2012, 09:19:04 PM »
Hi Wilhelm,

It depends.  How SOON do you want to upgrade?  If you wait on the actual availability of a proposed 70D, it could be a long time before it's in your possession.  The 60D is a fine camera for a cheap price, so I can't really see anything wrong with your purchasing decision.  The 60D is probably far superior to the 40D.  I rank the 60D between the 7D and 50D (I know I know, I'm so clever).  Most of the pros I know use the 60D as backup body. 

For your 60D review:

Versus your 40D:

Viggo, you triggered the comparison I wanted to make.  No sane person would argue that the 50L lens is not better in bokeh and color rendition than the 50 f/1.4.  Afterall, I have the 50L and even stopped down, the colors are very good.  Having said that though, let's look at SHARPNESS ONLY.  And let's look at 3 focal lengths.  For the 35L, it is sharper at f/8 than the 35 f/2.  Okay, so the 35L is a better overall lens.  Now, let's look at the 85L.  The 85L is sharper than the 85 f/1.8 at f/8.  Again, the 85L is a better lens overall.  That leaves the 50L.  The 50L is NOT sharper than the 50 f/1.4 at f/8, in fact, the 1.4 is sharper.  See Bryan Carnathan's Tools/Tests if you don't believe me.  This is why the 50L leaves a lot to be desired.  For maximum sharpness across all apertures, I have to have two 50mm prime lenses, in effect, and that is not so for the 35 and 85mm focal lengths.  Would I get rid of my 50L?  No.  I like it wider than f/2.2.  It's a very, very good night lens too for street shots.  I like the saturation too.  But again, my comparison was center sharpness, which does matter too.

If I were shooting weddings, I would NOT purchase this lens just because I was shooting weddings.  Shoot your shots with the 50L, 50 1.4, load 'em onto your computer and compare.  You'll see no difference at all in IQ at f/2.8 and narrower, which is where I spend all of my time even in wedding photography.  So what would be the point in spending $1499 vs. $369?  If you want the awesome bokeh effects for elsewhere outside of weddings, then yes it is worth it.

Go cheap and get the nifty 50 (50 f/1.8 II).  It's so cheap it won't strap you and stopped down it's razor sharp.  The 50 f/1.4 is better, and more expensive, but still cheap ($360ish).  When I first bought my 5D Mark II a few years ago I had the 24-105L kit lens and picked up a quick nifty fifty.  I didn't regret it.  Of course as my photography expanded, my lens selection got significantly more expensive.  But here you have nothing to lose.  Purchasing the 50L you are doing a serious investment.  You can get many other primes that are very sharp stopped down for that price.  If you  need 50mm wider than f/2, the 50L makes sense.  But if you're shooting above f/2.8, any of the primes at 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 are great.  My recommendation is to not go expensive first.  Of course, there's always the new 40mm pancake lens.

I plan on testing my 5D Mark III tonight downtown doing night macro shots.  Yes, I know I'm insane, but at least it'll give us concrete shadow perfomance noise and/or cleanup post-processing. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Tips, Tricks & Settings
« on: June 25, 2012, 08:13:59 PM »

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

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.

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


Pages: 1 ... 153 154 [155] 156 157 ... 174