July 31, 2014, 11:36:26 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 - Chosenbydestiny

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16
136
I left the canon camp due to this primarily (PITA at weddings). Hopefully they fix the 12fps af servo issue on the 1DX but I am glad I didn't wait around for a fix.

Then why are you here??? ??? ???

+1 lol

137
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 40D
« on: February 08, 2013, 04:01:55 AM »
7D seems closest to what you need, at least compared to the 40D. A 1D mark III is also quite good... But it'll be very close in terms of low light ISO performance, if you can get a good used copy of it I'd definitely go for it but the 7D will be the best value for the price if you need extra cash for something else. The 7D also has a higher quality screen. My 1D mark III is still my favorite body, because of how it feels when shooting, despite the difficulty of finding a replacement battery in my area...

138
With all due respect, you seem to be repeatedly making this point in a variety of threads, but without substantiating it.  You also don't seem to own any full frame Canon camera body according to your signature, so where is the source for your information?

Asking for sources is perfectly fine - though since this is not a scientific article, skipping them unless asked to is imho also ok. While looking for the adequate ff camera (5d2/5d3/6d) I did a lot of research and downloaded multiple raw comparisons and had a look for myself in Lightroom. What exact source are you asking for - that the 5d2 is sharpest at low iso, or that the 6d is less sharp than the 5d3? If I can I'll try to post where I got the information from, though it were a lot of articles so I'll really have to look. Not to be misunderstood: I also think the 6d iq is overall much better than the 5d2, that's why I'll buy the 6d.

Btw: I'm not a big fan of the "you don't own that gear, you can't tell anything about it" argument - while this is certainly true for saying how some gear handles over longer periods of time, your 6d probably has the same sensor as any reviewer's 6d, so I'm confident I can come to valid conclusion when evaluating other people's raw files. If reading sources would be no viably way to acquire information, scientific or journalistic work would be confronted with quite a problem.

I don't think that I ever said that you could "not tell anything about it".  I do question trying to make such a strong point that seems to contradict prevailing wisdom without more evidence to back it up...and I don't recall you ever actually quoting a source. 

I think your policy of using other people's RAW files to get a sense of the camera's ability is a good one.  I think that doing research is very smart.  But I don't think just having RAW files is going to tell you the whole story about all the potential variables at capture or give you a real sense of the operation/workflow of the camera.  I'm not looking for an argument; I look forward to hearing your thoughts once you have had a chance to use the camera for yourself.

+1 it's a completely different perspective to own the actual product. I bashed the 6D when it was announced and bought one for my wife because she needed "just" the better ISO performance. Ended up buying one for myself as well because of the compact delivery of IQ nearly identical to 5D3. For still subjects at least. It's easily a level above the 5D2 for image quality and AF which matter the most, and several other features. The weaknesses are easily outweighed. I bashed the 60D when it was announced as well, but last year we ended up buying 3 of them instead of the somewhat noisier 50D. IQ just wins in the end over other features, especially since Canon is beginning to trail behind in sensor technology. Not saying it's the only thing that matters, but if you want to make the most out of your lenses I'm sure it's a good place to start.

139
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Focus Assist Beam Fix On The Way!!!
« on: February 06, 2013, 01:23:00 AM »
Great news for us indoor event shooters...

140
Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS
« on: February 06, 2013, 01:19:39 AM »
I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video.  You know, because stills photography is for old timers.  Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.
I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!

You're sure everyone here is educated?  I'm not...I meant, educate yourself formally...as in, go to film school.  Learn how to shoot a "film" the right way, and not by following fads and trends of the wedding market.  And stop telling me something is foolish just because you think it costs too much.  Your competition may very well eventually budget for a C100, or similar (if they haven't already)...and steal your customers, so you might as well work toward getting one yourself.  If you already own several DSLR bodies, a C100 would only take the place of two.  Oh, and I'm perfectly relaxed...are you?  Sheesh.  Like I said, I'm tired of people who have the DSLR video mindset, thinking they can dictate how those who shoot primarily stills, should think.  Control freak much?

I'm not against a 24-70 IS.  But I am against one if it is meant primarily as a video lens...I doubt it would sell very well.  I actually enjoy lenses with IS, for shooting stills.  If the IS is working properly and used properly, it can add sharpness to a picture regardless of the shutter speed...fast or slow...in my opinion.  It's just that there are varying levels of IS quality, depending on the individual lens, and focal length.  I agree that a lens like the 24-70, at least at the wide end...could have problems with IS switched on, as was stated above.

You don't sound relaxed at all. Anyways, DSLRs are always going to be primarily for stills. I have no idea where you got the idea where people say that the future of DSLR usage is video. What I do believe is that it's a natural progression for both the market and people who are starting out and/or transitioning from stills to video because of the more appealing starting price point, which I may add, hasn't affected the pricing of DSLRs themselves. No one has to buy a C100 to prove that they're a pro just like no one has to buy a medium format camera to prove they're above DSLR users. People are going to steal customers, but not because of the quality of their gear, and more so because of the quality of their work. It's not like back in the day when we had less gear to choose from, requiring higher budgets. We are in modern times, we should have a modern mindset. They won't release an EF 24-70 2.8 IS for just video use. I am in no way scared that they will. Even if they do, it will be up in the cinema lenses line and cost a horrendous amount of money.

141
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF
« on: February 04, 2013, 09:27:04 PM »

The simple fact of the matter, though, is the 7D gives BETTER IQ than the cheapest Canon APS-C. The notion that sensor is the sole factor in IQ is fundamentally flawed, and why so many on this forum do not understand the true value an APS-C camera like the 7D. There are numerous other features offered with the 7D, not the least of which are its superior AF system and higher frame rate over the xxxD and xxD lines, that lead to better results in more cases. An increase in the number of usable outcomes is a very valuable thing, and more often than not those features are in addition to the image sensor, not solely because of the image sensor.

Let's drop the notion that sensor is the end-all, be-all of image quality. It is not. I'd offer that frame rate and AF system are critical, if not the most critical, factors in IQ for a significant amount of photographic endeavors. Pretty much anything that involves automatically locking focus on non-stationary subjects, or requires actively tracking subjects in motion, can greatly benefit from the additional features the 7D offers over the xxD and xxxD lines. I'd also be willing to bet that the keeper rate for the 7D is far higher than that from either a 60D or 650D, or any other prior version of those lines, thanks to its superior features...despite the fact that the image sensor is the same.

Iv'e always regarded the lens as the most important factor in image quality.... It doesn't matter what camera you have, you need the right lens for the job if you are going to do it well. I smile to myself when I hear someone with a 5D3 and Lglass comparing themselves to a rebel with a kit lens and saying it's the sensor that gives them the better picture.... swap lenses and see what happens...

I did a bunch of comparison shots for resolving power about two years ago between a 5D2 and a 7D.... In poor light the 5D2 was always the winner. With good light and a crappy lens, the 5D2 gave better resolving power, but with a good lens, the 7D out-resolved the 5D2.... Different tool... different strengths... different weaknesses.
If one tool did it all, Canon would only have one model.... and it would be identical to the equavelent sony, nikon, panasonic, and Olympus model.

They can't swap lenses, the rebel's kit lens is EF-S =P Aside from my smart remark, +1. A better lens does make the entire, overall image better, even more so with an L prime.

142
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:23:17 AM »


First, the "comparison" plamen posted IS NOT relevant or the situation I have constantly referred to, I KEEP saying FOR THE SAME FRAMED IMAGE, that means moving forwards for the 100.

Exactly what I did. The error was about 10%.

I will post some more.

Why not just try and tell me which of the four images I posted many pages ago are shot with which lens, surely that should be easy seeing as how the 135 has a "unique look"? And that is my point, yet again, it is not about comparisons, it is about the FACT that nobody can RELIABLY tell what image was shot with which lens, nobody who alludes to this "unique look" can reliably identify it, if you can't reliably identify it it isn't "unique". If the look it gives isn't unique then there needs to be a better reason to choose between the two lenses. My thought was that, bearing in mind nobody seems to be able to differentiate the lenses when used for portraits, the macro has much more flexibility. Now why is that so controversial?

You're right, to an extent. But you're wrong to an even further extent. Yes, distance, the amount of light, composition, etc play a very big factor in creating an image. But macro lenses, like other lenses have very noticeable strengths and weaknesses. In terms of image quality itself, I don't know how you can't see it. I saw it right away after borrowing a 100L and comparing it to my 135mm and 85mm lenses. Macro images look horrible for head and shoulder shots. I can even see it in full body portraits. Color wise, sharpness wise, they're over the top. Fixing it all in post is no excuse, over saturation destroys the range from the standard portrait distances. So no, nobody wants to use a bloody 100L for portraits, mostly for those reasons, and some because of AF performance and speed which is another sacrifice. If you need to get close, it's no compromise, get a macro lens. But don't tell me it's equal or better than portrait lenses.

143
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 03, 2013, 02:02:14 AM »
Are some of you going blind? The short answer is yes, a macro lens can be used as a portrait lens, technically. But when you're taking a photo of a person who is facing your camera, and your trying to get a natural look.... Macro lenses are horrible for that. Most of them are too sharp, oversaturate and don't render skin tones naturally. If you can't see that in the sample comparisons alone I suggest getting your eyes checked. That's why specialty lenses are designed specific ways, to excel in the areas they were designed for. Simple as that.

144
6D Sample Images / Re: for those who snub the 6D AF...
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:57:50 PM »
Somewhere over North Carolina, aircraft closure rate about 900kts (1000 mph), 6D with kit 24-105L:

http://flic.kr/p/dHt6qF

(hmm... can't get the image to post. Sorry, link is valid.)


i donĀ“t want to be an ass.... but one photo does not prove that the 6D AF is worth much.

even with the worst AF system you will get good images.... sometimes.
that does not mean the 6D AF is complete crap.

but the percentage of keepers is more interesting then a single image.


+1 definitely more keepers on more expensive full frame cameras in the Canon lineup, how it should be. Although the 6D is easily underestimated because of that.

145
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShots for CP+, no DSLRs.
« on: January 28, 2013, 10:03:56 PM »
Disappointing, as expected.

146
Canon General / Re: Since 7D MkII isn't coming soon.....
« on: January 28, 2013, 02:44:53 PM »
Nothing wrong with buying the current 7D model, it's at least better than vaporware, hehe.

147
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 28, 2013, 05:02:07 AM »
For video, the 6D brings basically no advantage over a 5D2. And those can be found, used, for a lot less than you'd pay for a 6D. That would be my advice for anyone going for a full frame video DSLR and no budget for a 5D3 or D800.

More video modes like 60 frames with options for ALL-i, cleaner image at high ISO, better screen for those who use zacuto z-finders and such, longer clip recording, lighter body for support systems, manual audio straight out of the box, lens correction, faster processing chip for less lag with startup and recording, easier download of footage straight to laptops for onsite (SDE) event type editing via SD card which are also cheaper than CF, and oh wait... It's in production now whereas the 5D mark II is now phased out which means more support and availability for accessories like grips and such. Sure sounds like no advantage to me ^^

At least here where I live, a used 5D mark II out of warranty from a non dealer but in acceptable condition is only 100$ less than a brand new 6D body, obviously with a warranty. Of course, even if it was an official dealer, you also run the risk of buying into a high shutter count. Even if you're a photographer, there is no reason to buy the 5D mark II now unless you need better build quality (not as big of a difference as you may think), 1/8000th sec shutter or 1/200 flash sync which not many will need. There are ways around the shutter speed differences like ND filters and stopped down apertures, not everyone shoots in the frikkin snow, and if you're shooting with a flash onboard you can always do HSS. Event shooters usually shoot around 1/50th sec indoors anyway.

148
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:36:05 PM »

The 7DII will be cheaper than the 6D. That's for sure ...

... This message is needed to assert the premium-ness of FF; without it, it's hard to charge a (hefty) premium for FF.

The 6D is nothing but a FF Rebel (entry level camera), while the 7D is a semi-pro camera several steps removed from a Rebel. I'm sure that there are many people who want/need an APS-C camera, like birders, who will pay extra to get what they want/need.

Like I've said before, it's nowhere close to a rebel. They'd have to take away the ergonomics, the magnesium body parts that it does have, the top LCD screen, the thumb wheel, adjustable kelvin, AFMA, etc etc. If you've owned a 7D before, it feels very very similar in size and weight. The button layout is more like the 60D, quality of the photos is closer to 5D mark III, and the AF is closer to the 5D mark II. The only ONE feature that it takes from a rebel series is the 1/4000th sec shutter speed, and that is ALL. You'd also have to throw a POS built-in flash to throw it below the pro level. Every other feature is brand new like the way the zoom button works, wifi, and gps. Entry level FF makes more sense as you can see it as a stripped down base model luxury car. But it's very far up from being a rebel.

149
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 27, 2013, 03:16:24 AM »
My core point is that all cameras have issues, the op picked up moire, the 5d3 will moire, as has any ccd or cmos camera I've used in the right (wrong) situation.

And The reason I never bought a 5d2 is exactly ad you've described,
ML had the hack as I was buying, but the wide angles were better (effective focal length for focal length) the jellio far less and the depth of field more managable, out the box pal, full hd video preview, better stills performance for my shooting etc etc.

If the answer is to buy a new camera then the question is all wrong.

Can't fix moire on a 6d not going to be able to fix it on s 5d3, when it inevitably will occur.

In the middle of making the business case for a pair of c100's and I'm considering one for my personal freelance kit.

Not the best codec, but for the occasions something above 8bit is required I'll hire a samuri.

For this specific shot, of those tiles eith that lens at that setting, a 5d3 MAY have been better.

But that really is missing the point.

I somewhat agree with the superiority complex, because the 5D mark III really is that good. =P But seeing as how the 6D is priced much closer to the level of the 5D mark II. It all comes down to you get what you pay for. I own both, and I'm very much aware of their value. If you're doing pro video then you're most likely not using DSLRs, at least not as a main cam. I can understand using DSLRs for the cinema look, because it does look great to the general public and the 5D mark II proved that years ago. But you have to think really hard about where the 6D is priced and positioned. Only someone without common sense would think that the 6D should have the same amount of advantages as a 5D mark III. We have to accept it for what it is, and it's still great for the price point and not everyone cares about moire, mostly just us in this thread. Moire is more of a technical disadvantage than a creative one. If you've seen great videos by the 5D mark II and almost all the cameras that came after it, it's silly to make moire such a big deal, even now. There's obviously a price premium to avoid it, as long as you're still dedicated to using a Canon system. If you're good at what you do then you have to be ready to accept what limits you will have in the equipment you buy. Moire is not that big of a deal if you're not ready to make the bigger investment.

150
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?
« on: January 24, 2013, 08:47:58 PM »
5D2 > 6D better VF

Is that true?  Does anyone else feel that the 5D2 viewfinder is better than that of the 6D?  If the 5D2 viewfinder is better, what exactly is better about it?  I have a 5D2 but not a 6D and haven't had a chance to handle a 6D.  Thanks in advance.

In my experience the 5D2 viewfinder is slightly darker, not that big of a deal in broad daylight. But you'll definitely notice the 6D's viewfinder is brighter in low light situations. I can't see the difference between 98% or 97%, it feels just the same.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16