September 20, 2014, 08:38:24 PM

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 ... 172
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!

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. 

Canon General / DOF and Sensor Size
« on: July 01, 2014, 10:03:34 AM »
Sorry guys, I tried to search for this topic on here and I couldn't really get exactly what I needed so I will post the question but if you know the link to another thread that already discussed this thoroughly I would really appreciate that too. 

I'm very familiar with the mathematics behind focal length, aperture, DOF, and CoC.  However, I keep getting the question on whether sensor size really does affect DOF objectively.  I don't think it does, in that I think it is a subjective matter, but I cannot answer them succinctly. 

I don't want to take up too much of anyone's time explaining this, but I would really love to hear someone else's technical explanation of this or at least be linked to one, preferably from this site since the knowledge on here is incredible. 


HAHA!  :)  MSP sure didn't have a positive D800 experience.
I, OTOH, LUV the darn things. :)

BUT, I rarely need hi ISO abilities.  When I do, I find I can still get high quality images even from 3200 ISO with only a small amount of NR required.

So, part of what you'll need to consider when you make a decision like this is knowing HOW high of and ISO you're going to be operating at on a "need" basis.  If you don't "need" to go about 3200, the d800 class of camera will still provide a lot of detail.  If you need to go higher ISO on a regular basis then you may want to choose something like the 6D or more premium bodies but pay close attention to the types of noise produced by all cameras.  Random niose is not a bit deal, pattern noise is a big hassle and sometimes a complete deal-breaker.  The latter is why most of my gear is no longer Canon.

Not surprised...

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 27, 2014, 09:59:38 PM »
Speaking from a sports shooter only:

The frustrating thing about the 7D is that Canon said it was for sports shooters and...The 7D pretty much sucks at ISO 800 and higher.  I would know because I tried to shoot in the trenches with it for indoor basketball and volleyball for 2 years with a 1D4 as the main camera.  The 1D4 kicked it's a$$ but I needed the reach.  I guess my standards were high but it was awful.  Shooting to the right doesn't always work.  If you're at f/2.8, or worse, f/2.2, 1/500s, and still at ISO 3200 or 6400, there's nothing you can do.  You can shoot to the right or whatever you call it but the only option is to slow down your shutter speed and now you have blurry athletes.  Since I pretty much always shoot indoor sports wide open or close to wide open (depending on lens f/2.2 or f/2.8 ) at 1/500s and EC +2/3EV with CWA or spot metering, this was a real pain with the 7D.  It wasn't as bad with a 1D4 and not nearly as good as FF.

When you went to FF, all of the problems were solved.  That's what was so great.  We could blow up action shots at ISO 6400 for the universities and print them, no problem.  The 7D replacement really needs an improved sensor.  In the collegiate scene I rarely see any cropped cameras anymore; it's all 1D4 (cropped), 5D3, and 1Dx.  In fact, I did all three each of the D1, D2, D3 NCAA Track Meets this year and it was unusual in that most shooters had either a 5D3 or 1Dx.  In years past that wasn't true as I saw plenty of 50D's, 7D's, 1D4's.  Oddly, not this year.

Mirrorless will really have to improve to appeal to action shooters too.  The AF is so erratic and slow it's just well, plain awful.  I think the concept has potential though for other things.  Just not for me.

Due to all of this, I will be watching the 7D's replacement very anxiously to see how it performs.  If it performs decently with a better AF system, I will buy one and use it outdoors, for sure.  I still don't think (my opinion) that it's going to match FF though.

On the other hand, I agree with the frustrations FF brings, meaning now you need longer lenses and a more expensive camera.  It can be quite cost prohibitive.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: June 27, 2014, 08:08:59 PM »
Regarding IQ, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is best, the 70-200 f/4L IS is 2nd best, and then the 70-200 f/2.8L I lens.  It is a very good lens.

And you are so knowledgeable because ......

APS-H is gone.  Not coming back. 

Canon General / New Term
« on: June 27, 2014, 02:35:34 PM »
We all know what gear heads are, or at least the typical definition of a "gear head" but I had another thought.  I've been dealing with a lot of people who are absolute in their views of "gear doesn't matter at all, in any situation" and people who feel as though they are better and had it rougher and tougher back in the film days and how all digital photographers are lazy.  I was thinking "Film Heads" but I'm still thinking.

Just a "light" humor thread for a Friday afternoon.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 27, 2014, 09:46:36 AM »
I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything.

The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.

I agree that any 7D Mark II will be APS-C but to say that crop is better for nearly everything is wrong.  It's not better for low-light and it's only good for reach and putting pixels on subject, when you are reach limited.

I hear a lot about how a FF/crop combo is the best for sports such as a 5D3/7D combo.  While I agree it's convenient and useful, and ignoring price obviously, it would still be better to have a pair of 1Dx's with sufficient reach lenses.  The 1Dx with the longer lens to make up for the 7D's crop factor will produce better IQ, at ALL ISO's.  This is exactly why I ditched both of my 7D and 1D4 cameras in favor of a longer lens and another 1Dx.  Again though, photography was helping fund a lot of that and had I been on my own, NO WAY I could have afforded that.  So I agree with jrista and neuro regarding the cost factor regarding crop cameras.  It really was the price difference between a 7D and 1D4 back in 2010 (even though technically the 1D4 is a "crop" camera).   

With that being said, I really hope the 7D replacement is revolutionary and I think it will sell well and make a lot of people happy.  I may consider it as a "3rd" camera if the specs are right and I have the funding.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 70d center focus point -bug- problem
« on: June 25, 2014, 09:14:00 PM »
I am amazed that Americans think that they can rename cities and countries for other people. He has the spelling correct in Turkish. Americans call Firenze "Florence" and Padova "Padua." Of course, the people in Italy don't know the names of their own cities, Firenze and Padova.

It depends what language you are speaking. All languages rename foreign cities and countries based on their own rules and pronunciations. No doubt the United States of America is called something else in Turkey.

Using the Turkish spelling for "Turkey" is proper when you are speaking Turkish, but when you are using English (as we are on this board), the correct spelling is "Turkey".

Who cares?

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 05:17:51 PM »
I don't know why Canon's fast (short) primes don't have IS - but I hope this continues to be the case.
My concern with IS is that it introduces a dead element in the focal path (this is my description for a piece of glass that does nothing) also IS slows up AF acquisition. On longer lenses (300mm +) then I agree that IS can be handy (to have in reserve) though I very rarely use it these days.
Back in January I turned off the IS on My Canon 800 F5.6 L IS and was happier without it. AF is faster and I have had no problems regarding shutter speeds (note I use ISO's of up to 12800) also due to the improved AF my "Hit Rate" is higher. Since then I have turned off the IS on all my IS lenses (300 F2.8 L IS, 70-200 F2.8 L IS and 24-105 L IS) and have noticed similar improvements. IS can be handy to have in reserve but on my 300 F2.8 and shorter lenses I really don't have much use for it, on the 800mm it can be handy for Dawn/Dusk shots but as soon as the light is near passable I turn it off.
Just my 2p.

That's why I don't shoot moving objects or sports with IS.  I shut it off on my 300 and 400 f/2.8's because my miss rate increased with IS turned on. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 25, 2014, 03:47:11 PM »
I think we ALL know deep down that it is NOT going to be either FF or APS-H. 

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 11:57:04 AM »
I think people want absolutely IS, but don't know why..

Cameras have good higher and higher ISO..
Very good lens have a lot of light...

-> you can have enough light for fast speeds (> 1/100 or 150)... So why do we bother for IS....
I was useful when camera couldn't go (good) over ISO400..  but know, IS is more and more useless.

I see utility only for long lenses.

While it's true that high ISO performance is good on newer cameras, it's still the case that image quality is better with lower ISOs (esp. if you want or need to crop, and esp. with smaller sensors); so IS/IBIS can be useful even with short, fast primes.  Unless there's clear evidence that putting IS in a very fast lens reduces its image quality, I really don't understand why people object to the idea.   


I've been in situations where I'm at 1/125s, f/2.8, and ISO 8000 and shooting stationary objects.  If IS lets me lower my shutter speed so that ISO is 2000, then that is a very good thing.

What the hell's a Canon Explorer of Light?

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX2 5D4 to be announced in January/ February 2015
« on: June 22, 2014, 05:10:18 PM »
Over at NL I just read:
21st Both the 5D4 and 1D X mk2 are to be announced January/February of next year, we're told (thanks).
The 1D X mk2 will be announced first (potentially late this year), but will ship later.
Both will incorporate significant advances in sensor design, which mean that there will be no high MP '3D' class body this year.

The info suggested that this was what was being tested in the studios we heard about last month,
(we've read it here:
and that elements of it woud appear in the upcoming 7D mk2, but that the real advance would not be seen until next year.

@CR guy: did you receive any other, supplementing news by sources which were accurate in the past?

What could the specs of a 5D4 be in ISOs? "native 51K"? Let's say ISO 25.6k like my ISO 12.8 on the 5D3 today? I just hope in case of the 5D4 they don't raise the MP count but improve the great allround cam significantly in IQ high ISO wise.

Geez, do I have to keep doing this?  Over at NL, they once, quoted, "The 1Ds Mark IV will be announced this year..."  I think that was back in 2011. 

How did that pan out for everyone?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 172