September 17, 2014, 09:39:20 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 172
31
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:40:51 AM »

IS data re-run with Neuro's advice in mind.  A solid 2s run-up with the IS was used for each shot.

New IS data below.  Same non-IS data as before.

1) IS OFF at 16mm, I netted:

  • 3 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
  • 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
  • 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure

2) IS ON at 16mm, I netted:

  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
  • 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
  • 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
  • 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (two borderline ones were called 0.5 each)

3) IS OFF at 35mm, I netted:

  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
  • 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
  • 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure

4) IS ON at 35mm, I netted:

  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
  • 4.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
  • 3.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
  • 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
  • 0.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)

I'll be damned.  Neuro's trick shows 16mm IS is more like a 2 stop benefit, but the 35mm data only slightly improved (still around 3 stops).

Neuro, is this true with all IS lenses?  That might imply sports guys with long glass never net as sharp a shot with the first frame in a long burst that they might get with the rest...

- A

I use long superteles and shoot sports and I never use IS because my keeper rate is lower than with it off...exactly from what neuro stated.  I didn't really think the 300 f/2.8L II IS speed or mode 3 helped vs. the version I lens either.  IS certainly has it's places though, for sure.

32
I find the 6D to have better focus than any crop camera (and I've owned them all). If the 6D can nail bighorn rams unpredictably smashing heads, it can keep up with your kids and track race cars.

Have you tried it on kids?  It couldn't keep up with mine... 

Like the 5DII before it, it does a decent job at tracking subjects moving across the frame, like the bighorns in your excellent image.  Where the 5DII and 6D fail are when a subject is moving toward or away from the camera (away is worse).   I just processed a burst sequence taken with my 1D X and 70-200/2.8L IS II of a gymnast running straight at me and vaulting from springboard onto the pad (which I was standing behind).  All 26 shots in the burst are in crisp focus (lighting was pretty poor, shots were at 1/800 s, f/3.2, ISO 12800).  The 7D would have gotten many of the shots in focus (but they'd have been unusable due to the ISO noise or the motion blur with a slower shutter speed.  The noise from the 6D would have been acceptable, but after the first couple of frames, most of the shots would have been backfocused (and I'd have had far fewer shots, of course).

I found this to be true in diving and in long jump/triple jump.  If I put zone AF on the 1Dx/70-200 f/2.8L II IS combo, it will track the diver from the jump, up in the air, and all the way down into the water.  In long jump, I can get the entire sequence in sharp focus as the jumper springs off the runway and all the way into the sand, even at f/3.2.  I am not aware of any other Canon camera that can do that, because I tried it with the 7D, 1D4, and 5D3, and none of them could do it as well.  I sold my 7D, 1D4, and 5D3, and bought another 1Dx as a result.

33
What I need is longer lens. :D

I don't do shallow DOF, and my subject are often on the floor, on furniture or against the backdrop, so...

I know I want one of these two, and I hate changing lenses so 135 and 200 were not an option.
If you're mostly doing studio work without needing shallow DOF, I'd definitely go with the f/4 IS.  It's a great lens and the size, weight, and cost savings are well worth the aperture trade off, especially if you don't NEED f/2.8.  Besides, if you watched the Olympics in Sochi, you might have noticed that nearly all of the indoor sports shooters were using the 200-400 1.4x, which is f/4.  Yes, they were using 1D Xs, but just four years ago, they were all using 200 f/2s or the 300 & 400 f/2.8s, so fast lenses aren't what they used to be.

I'm going to point out something here.  Big events like the Olympics and NCAA Div. I basketball are very, very well lit.  Even the lighting at bigger schools in non-basketball sports is awful.  Shoot anything less and f/4 believe me, will NOT cut it.  Most of the shooters on here will not likely be at these bigger events.  I shot volleyball at St. John Arena at Ohio State (MSU vs. OSU) and most of my exposures were 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 5000-6400.  I wouldn't have shot that event had I not had a 1Dx AND the 2.8 zoom lens.  Just walk across campus to the Schottenstein Center for a basketball game and you're doing 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 1250-1600 easily. 

34
Canon General / Re: What's Would You Keep? [The anti-G.A.S. thread]
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:20:36 AM »
If I had to strip away everything, I could probably survive with (for what I shoot):

1Dx + 24-70 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L II IS, 400 f/2.8L I IS.

That'd be insane but I suppose it could be done.  According to some all I need is a pin-hole camera though too.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 09, 2014, 04:15:07 PM »
Unless there is a major improvement in the sensor quality, this signals bad news for the future of Canon.  They are behind Nikon (Sony) in sensor technology and need to step up their game to keep competitive.

I think you have the reversed.  According to the latest data, the gap between Canon and Nikon is actually growing slightly.  Seems that Nikon had better do something and react, not the other way.

See, there you go‚Ķbringing up data and facts. How dare you?!?   :)

But...but...DxOmark said so...

:)

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 09, 2014, 04:02:49 PM »
Unless there is a major improvement in the sensor quality, this signals bad news for the future of Canon.  They are behind Nikon (Sony) in sensor technology and need to step up their game to keep competitive.

I think you have the reversed.  According to the latest data, the gap between Canon and Nikon is actually growing slightly.  Seems that Nikon had better do something and react, not the other way.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:01:54 PM »
Clearly, it will not have the AF system of the 1Dx and will not have nearly the IQ of the 5D3.  And I don't get why people keep putting the AF system of the 1Dx/5D3.  The 1Dx and 5D3 do not have the same AF system.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 07:12:27 PM »

I've seen some cost comments from folks. I know that this is a thread about positivity, but sub $2k, sub 6D pricing may be a tough get depending on how 'pro' this body is designed.

As I've said many times in this forum, for some people, the reach of APS-C is vital to what they do (BIF people come to mind).  To those folks, crop is a really high-quality 1.6x T/C without the T/C headaches of AF responsiveness or significantly lessened IQ.  To those folks, the length upside lets them not have to buy a $10k+ lens to get their shots or for those who do have that money, it lets those great lenses reach even further.  To those folks, Canon could eeeeeeasily get above $2k for this new body.


Yup.  I'm on record as saying I'd pay $3-4K for a 5DIII in crop factor form and no ISO/image quality penalty.  I have a 7D and a 5DIII and the 7D sits unused, the 5D is that much better.

Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a capable camera, I think it gets beat up a bit too much on the forums.  It's just that the 5D is better.  I'm really hoping that the 7DII is like a 5DIII w/ a 1.6x TC that doesn't take a stop of light and doesn't drop the image quality.  That would be worth a lot to anyone who does wildlife, especially birds.

Probably the only way an APS-C sensor could match the ISO quality of the 5D3 would be to double the QE and that's just not going to happen.  Likely, it won't even be close.  I would have liked to have seen them continue on with a 1D Mark V, APS-H sensor, but that went away.

39
Lenses / Re: Confused, 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4?
« on: July 06, 2014, 06:07:28 PM »
If you read Bryan Carnathan's review of the lenses, the 24-70 f/2.8L II does have better IQ.  Whether it's that much better IQ for the price premium is another issue.  I also agree that IS is useful in many cases.  For me personally though, I went with the f/2.8 lens because it can literally replace the 24L, 35L, and 50L, all in one fell swoop if you don't need wider than f/2.8 apertures, not to mention the wider aperture for AF in sports. 

40
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 04, 2014, 12:44:10 PM »
Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight.  Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.

To bdunbar79, any sense of entitlement you perceive is your own creation, because there is none.  I apologized in advance in case anyone misjudged my tone, and explained why I prefer a text version, and was seeking an explanation "from the other side", so to speak.  Apparently you just enjoy causing arguments, of which I will not give you the pleasure of.

No Mayo, where did I ever say I was not trying to draw attention to myself at work?  Not being able to watch that long of a video does not equate to trying not to draw attention on myself.  I explained numerous times how I wanted to find out the reasons for a video instead of text.  Obviously, I prefer text.  When did it become wrong to try to see the other side?  Where I come from, that's admirable, not arrogant.

Or simply, you can ask RLPhoto for a transcription or text version.  Then everybody's happy. Everybody got his own preference.  Just my 2 cents, if you don't prefer videos, then just simply don't bother with the post and move on or ask if he's offering the same review in your preferred format.  You're clearly inviting arguments when you write your heavily opinionated statements there. ::)

Exactly!  If you are GENUINELY wanting to know why he chose video over text, you would have contacted him directly, asked him, gotten the information, and had been done with it.  Instead, you chose the route you did.  Or better, you could have read Bryan Carnathan's review (text with pictures) instead.  Much easier choices.

41
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 03, 2014, 08:05:01 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews.  Can you link us to one?  Thank you.
You must be a sensitive person.  Opinionated too.  I couldn't watch it at work, either, but I sure would have enjoyed the brief review in text form.

No, I just love the sense of entitlement.  If you're not happy with his (free) review you can do your own text review and post it.  We'll look forward to it.  And when you post it, we'll also bitch about it how it wasn't the way we wanted it.

42
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 03, 2014, 02:18:41 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews.  Can you link us to one?  Thank you.

43
Canon General / Re: DOF and Sensor Size
« on: July 02, 2014, 09:45:41 AM »
Thank you to everyone who replied.  Doug Kerr's and Lee Jay's explanations were awesome.  I always appreciate when people take the time to help me. 

44
Canon General / Re: DOF and Sensor Size
« on: July 01, 2014, 04:57:14 PM »
Thanks neuro.  I'm not a specialist in this area and I just couldn't come up with the relationship with output size.  Thanks again!


45
Canon General / Re: DOF and Sensor Size
« on: July 01, 2014, 10:17:37 AM »
One question and well-known example is the through DOF calculators online.  If you select a subject distance say at 100 feet, 1Dx, 50mm lens, f/4, you get a DOF.  You merely change cameras to the 7D, and get quite a different DOF.  Everything else is the same, you haven't moved and your subject hasn't moved, lens hasn't changed, but you will most certainly get a different DOF calculation because the CoC is different.  I guess that's conceptually where I am not great.  Thanks. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 172