October 20, 2014, 12:49:34 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 174
61
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.

62
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...

:)

63
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.

64
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.

65
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.

66
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. 

67
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.

68
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.

69
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.

70
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. 

71
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!


72
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. 

73
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. 

Thanks!

74
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...

75
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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 174