October 21, 2014, 10:39:25 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 174
46
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 24, 2014, 03:55:58 PM »
I sucked  :-\

 :) :D ;D

47
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:47:28 PM »
many years.
there is nothing wrong with the 50L.

it's a people lens. it's plenty sharp.
it's f/1.2 - so if you're not nailing focus, you need to work on your technique.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

Exactly.  It's not the f/1.2 aperture that causes the focus problems on this particular lens.  It's actually the field of curvature and is especially prominent at close distances from about f/2.8 to f/4.5.  The lens will back-focus and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it.  I thought it was pretty underwhelming for $1699.

48
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Where do you buy 5D Mark iii?
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:45:23 PM »
My sincere advice to you is to wait.  If you are cutting it this close with budget, just put some money away and save up to get a $3399 with $200 rebate deal.  This way it's only $3199 and you get a full USA warranty.  If you have to wait several more months than I'd do that.

49
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 04:34:18 PM »
I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance.  I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4.  Love all 3 of them.  The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  Absolutely brilliant.  After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses.  In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4.  Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.

Should I take up photography again at razor thin DOF then I'd definitely consider buying it again, probably refurbished.     

Depends on which aperture for sure on this issue.  This is a weird case where the 50L is good at one aperture range while the 1.4 is best at the other.  Odd situation.

50
Lenses / Re: New Canon 16-35 f4 IS not listed in CPS directory
« on: July 21, 2014, 11:50:08 AM »
The lens is on my amazon wish list.  Feel free to log in and purchase it for me :)

51
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 11:43:27 AM »
Unfortunately I never really had a great comparison.  Most of my 50L shooting days were before the 5D3 was out, and so most of them were done on a 1Ds3.  I got the 5D3 and that was consequently about the time I sold the 50L and began shooting with the 50 f/1.4 a lot more.  Oh well...

52
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 10:48:22 AM »
PBD,

I agree with your point in the other thread.  What is truly interesting, and there are tons of people claiming it has a unique look vs. the other lenses and yet NO ONE has risen to the challenge and identified which lens for which photo.  In the other thread one person claimed that there was "clearly a unique look of color and contrast that sets it apart from the other 50mm lenses" yet that person had no attempt or answer of identifying which photo was taken with which lens. 

Very interesting.

I think it's the internal sense of justification of purchasing something.  When I buy something for $1699 or whatever I need to internally validate the purchase and I need to hear from others that yes, it was worth it, especially if I'm insecure about the purchase.  It's the same as recommending gear.  People tend to think that the gear they bought is best for everyone else, because it was best for them.  I did buy the 50L and used it for over a year and was trying to pry at my photos to justify it.  I admitted that I couldn't, sold it, and kept the 50 f/1.4. 

53
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 19, 2014, 05:19:13 PM »
I owned and shot with the 50L extensively for over a year. 

It is a specialty lens specifically designed to be used primarily from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  Narrower than f/2.8 there are better 50mm lenses, namely the 50 f/1.4.  I didn't shoot wider than f/2.8 enough so I sold it and kept the 50 f/1.4.  TO ME, it wasn't worth the $1699 vs. $399 price difference.

If you love f/1.2 to f/2.2ish and you love the 50mm focal length, then I'd say it would be worth it.  If not, no way.

54
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 19, 2014, 11:07:19 AM »
If interested here is a quick informal test I did yesterday. Crop cameras are the best birding cameras IMO beating a FF pretty handily. Especially with the new crop sensors from sony.

Interesting that Art Morris (of who's website your URL is seemingly a parody, and who actually shoots birds instead of posed pooches) uses the 1D X and 5DIII with Canon 500/600 II lenses and delivers impressive images. 

I must say, your opinion smells like birds that fart.  :-X

  Non sense.  I personally do not like his pics that much, but many do.  Many others that use Canon equipment I like much better.
Just went to your site. Looks like you use the 1dx and 5D III & 600 II.  Birding photography, you are not very good IMO. Very poor.  Jrista, on the other hand is very talented IMO. But, I don't have to agree with him for sure.

  Great hobby though.... all the best.

 

Good job man.  You should be proud of yourself.

55
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 18, 2014, 09:26:36 PM »
Technique beats gear EVERY TIME?

You're telling this to someone who shot in dark gyms with a 1D4 and a 7D then switched to a 1Dx.  Technique hardly beats gear every time.  I highly doubt my "technique" increased my keeper rate by about 150% and gave me tons and tons of clean images at ISO 6400.

I'd rather shoot NCAA D2 basketball with a 1Dx and 70-200 f/2.8L II IS combo than an NBA game with a 7D, that is for absolute sure.

I swear sometimes you guys just argue to argue.
point taken.... how about technique USUALLY beats gear :)

 :P

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 18, 2014, 09:04:11 PM »
Technique beats gear EVERY TIME?

You're telling this to someone who shot in dark gyms with a 1D4 and a 7D then switched to a 1Dx.  Technique hardly beats gear every time.  I highly doubt my "technique" increased my keeper rate by about 150% and gave me tons and tons of clean images at ISO 6400.

I'd rather shoot NCAA D2 basketball with a 1Dx and 70-200 f/2.8L II IS combo than an NBA game with a 7D, that is for absolute sure.

I swear sometimes you guys just argue to argue.

57
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 03:13:36 PM »
Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only ;)

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

Yes, this.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 18, 2014, 03:12:36 PM »
How big is the birding/ wildlife photography base for a high end crop camera? I know that the bird/ wildlife pro photographers trend toward 1DX, but there are some very well respected pros using 7D and the Big Whites. Amateurs with this interest are grouped into "money no object (already own a Big White)", "value for money, middling budget (using a Little White 400, 100-400, or a Tammy, planning on upgrading to Big White eventually)", and "bargain basement / don't plan to invest in a Big White, will stick with Little White". I am in the middle group and am a good sales target for a high end crop camera. The last group will be reluctant to pay a premium over the 70D for a higher frame rate.  The first group? I have to say that I have not seen many 1DXs in the hands of amateur bird/wildlife photographers locally, with the exception of a very few tripod/blind shooters.

   I can afford a Idx, and I would not buy one for birding even at half the price. I tried one and tried the 5D III. Those are not birding cameras IMO. Or at least not for me.
  After the new big whites came out with the new FF cameras. My friends that I shoot with changed very quick. And just raved. I have been looking at there photos for the last two years. The detail and quality of there photos have gone downhill. And not just by a little. All of them also bought the new 600 to go with the new cameras.

 If interested here is a quick informal test I did yesterday. Crop cameras are the best birding cameras IMO beating a FF pretty handily. Especially with the new crop sensors from sony.

http://www.birdsthatfart.com/1/post/2014/07/pentax-k-3-sigma-300mm-f28-lens-vs-canon-1d-mark-iv-7d-300mm-f28-ii.html

Good thing in your post you put "IMO."

59
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 17, 2014, 06:25:50 PM »
I'm not great at this type of photography, but in the summer there are 1.  No sports and 2.  Lots of thunderstorms followed by sun.

60
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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 174