July 30, 2014, 08:42:44 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 171
61
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

How do you know? For this application it might well.

But why? Pro sports photographers aren't focal length limited generally so what do they have to gain by using a crop body? The only advantage I could think of would be a potentially higher frame rate as the mirror and shutter is much smaller but even then 12fps is crazy quick, even 10 is a lot

Pretty much everyone at all three each of the D1, D2, and D3 NCAA track meets had a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L I or II IS combo, plus a 2nd 1Dx with a 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens.  This was really dramatic compared to last year, when there was an even mix of 1Dx and 1D4 cameras, and Nikon cameras and lenses.  Majority this year was 1Dx and a supertele.  This may be a classic case of where people figure out very quickly that DxOmark scores mean absolutely nothing, they are ignored, and people get the gear that works best, especially pros.

62
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

How do you know? For this application it might well.

But why? Pro sports photographers aren't focal length limited generally so what do they have to gain by using a crop body? The only advantage I could think of would be a potentially higher frame rate as the mirror and shutter is much smaller but even then 12fps is crazy quick, even 10 is a lot

Ummmm....because a more modern camera may have improved ability set and track focus than a 4 year old camera?

You are forgetting the 1D cameras were not designed yesterday, they are old cameras with even older technology. Stuff improves.

Yeah, an APS-C camera that sucks at low light.  What a great camera for pro sports.

63
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

How do you know? For this application it might well.

But why? Pro sports photographers aren't focal length limited generally so what do they have to gain by using a crop body? The only advantage I could think of would be a potentially higher frame rate as the mirror and shutter is much smaller but even then 12fps is crazy quick, even 10 is a lot

Thank you.

64
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 04:13:22 PM »
Yeah, I know, it was kind of a rhetorical question to see dilbert's answer. ;)

So my answer is that you're being a troll :-P

That was not meant to be sarcastical and there's no need to insult me, I just wanted your explanation for your point of view, as I still might have understood something wrong. I would still like to hear your answer, although neuro and bdunbar confirmed me that I'm not thinking wrong. I apologize if you felt offended in any way!

There are two worlds:  1.  Reality, and 2.  DxOmarkLand

I think it is the people here that are trying to escape reality.

Logically, if we escape Reality, then we end up in DxOmarkLand.

65
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 02:48:08 PM »
Yeah, I know, it was kind of a rhetorical question to see dilbert's answer. ;)

So my answer is that you're being a troll :-P

That was not meant to be sarcastical and there's no need to insult me, I just wanted your explanation for your point of view, as I still might have understood something wrong. I would still like to hear your answer, although neuro and bdunbar confirmed me that I'm not thinking wrong. I apologize if you felt offended in any way!

There are two worlds:  1.  Reality, and 2.  DxOmarkLand

66
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

67
IMO, the 6D goes back from the 5D2.  Flash sync speed.  No better IQ.  Just keep it and save money.

68
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 01:17:03 PM »
So they do downsampling until the camera they want to be better is better...  :o don't know.... sounds strange, but is not subjective at all  ;)

No.

They are using the case where you are using both cameras to print out an image of the same size as their rationale.

They've been downsampling for as long as they've been doing sensor reviews.

The significance of that is that an 8MP image fills an A4 page at 300dpi.

So their "normalisation" is "downsize to fit on a piece of paper that people will print on at home."

That seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do to me.

So what does it mean? It means that the image taken with the D800e will look better when you print it out on your A4 printer at home than if you used the 1DX. Or for your magazine or...

I still don't understand. The 1DX's image should be getting better also, and it is proof that it is at full res, so what?

You unknowingly answered your own question.

69
I get into events all the time with my 400mm f2.8.  College football etc.  But I always reciprocate.  Send some photos to the team etc.

We're not talking games.  We're talking championship events.  Any sport in the United States in NCAA Division I is the same.  At championship events to get to the media areas, there are very strict guidelines, no exceptions.  I'm guessing the World Cup constitutes as a championship event. 

I'm sure if you showed up to the Rose Bowl with your 1Dx/400 f/2.8 combo, they'd just let you on the sidelines, right?  Wrong.

70
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 01:01:54 PM »
So they do downsampling until the camera they want to be better is better...  :o don't know.... sounds strange, but is not subjective at all  ;)

No.

They are using the case where you are using both cameras to print out an image of the same size as their rationale.

They've been downsampling for as long as they've been doing sensor reviews.

The significance of that is that an 8MP image fills an A4 page at 300dpi.

So their "normalisation" is "downsize to fit on a piece of paper that people will print on at home."

That seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do to me.

So what does it mean? It means that the image taken with the D800e will look better when you print it out on your A4 printer at home than if you used the 1DX. Or for your magazine or...

So just because of all of that, you can jump to the conclusion that it has better high ISO performance?  In other words, it doesn't mean much.

71
I went to some of the Hockey games of the world cup currently held at The Hague.
Only one guy walking around there with the long whites, all Nikon black...

I'm not a pro photographer and my knowledge about hockey is that it is usually played by humans in skirts carrying a stick in front of them.... So I went there as a spectator for the fun and for pictures of my family enjoying the game... still I got 2 times routed to the press area based on having the 200mm 1.8L mounted.

By the way that happened years ago already at a Bundesliga soccer match to me. (Got kicked out of the paparazzi area when I asked one of the pros which number Klinsmann was wearing)

This time I could not help myself but replacing the 60D I had at the 200mm with a red EOS M (lead to the same result as my Klinsmann question)

Anybody got similar 'upgrades' because of white lenses ?

Can we see just ONE photo of the World Cup game then?

72
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:16:22 AM »
I really do not understand the test method of DxO. I can't comprehend how the crappy-at-high-ISO-D800 can score higher in Low-Light ISO than the 1DX...  :o Would somebody be so kind and explain this to me?

Basically they normalize the 36MP image to 8MP and the 18MP image to 8MP, so no sh*t you get better noise performance, probably with additional mathematical (non-realistic) extrapolations. 

73
In all of the major sporting events I have been to, this would not be possible.  Either you have a media credential with your name and organization or you don't.  If you don't, you don't get to go to the media area.  Pretty simple and this thread sounds like a bunch of BS.

74
EOS Bodies / Re: A Few EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: June 17, 2014, 08:31:09 PM »
You could even take shots of the marshmallows that unicorn is crapping out as it flys around on it's magical cloud. :P


Hehehe! :-)

Unfortunately Canon's unicorns are of the non-aviatory kind. :-)



And non-migratory I suspect?

75
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: June 17, 2014, 12:10:25 PM »
I recently got the chance to test a 5DIII against my 7D; I tested sharpness, DR and noise in a highly unscientific way, shot a tree against the sun for DR and found only a slight advantage held by the 5D, sharpness got me about the same results (everything after an equal amount of processing in LR). What did really impress me was the high ISO performance of my old 7D. I shot RAW and applied moderate NR in Lightroom to each file of a row from 1600 to 12800. What I found out, was that, surprisingly, the 7D was only 1 stop worse than the 5DIII, so 1600ISO on my 7D look in 100% view like 3200ISO on the 5DIII!!! The gap grew very marginally from 6400ISO on the 7D upwards, but not even a third of a stop!! Of course, with the 7D, there's some crappy background noise at low ISO numbers, but the high ISO performance stunned me. I always assumed like minimum 2 stops difference between those two...  :)
So I will ask anybody, who got the same bodys: is that the same with your cameras or did I just have insanely infantile dreams about the 5DIII?  ;)

About the specs: It would surprise me if the 7DII featured 'only' a 16 MP sensor, although I would be perfectly fine with that. To fit the majority of potential buyers, they will increase resolution to something like 21-24MP. The noise will most likely be like the 70D as a result of this increase.

Or it could be that your comparison was highly unscientific and highly subjective, whereas the reviews that actually ARE highly scientific and highly objective, disagree with yours.

I have shot extensively with the 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, and 1Dx so I have a lot of experience with each.  There are members on this forum who have a lot more than me.  The 1Dx kicks the living crap out of the 7D with regards to high ISO performance, as does the 5D3 and 1D4.  I cringe when I have to set the 7D over ISO 800 but don't even notice I needed ISO 5000 or 6400 with the 5D3 or 1Dx.  Like Neuro said, physics is scary.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 171