November 23, 2014, 06:37:04 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 - Jackson_Bill

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
31
I hate to say this, but it's not about equipment, no matter how expensive. If you have a subject that you like, photograph it, to the best of your ability. You make the best pictures that you can, just as was done in the days of film. At any given time, the images that you can make are subject to the limitations of the equipment that you have. Nowadays, we are subject to considerably fewer limitations that in the days of press cameras. None the less, if you look at the best images from that period, they stand on their own, as relevant today as they were when made and the judgment of that quality is unencumbered by equipment limitations. No one gets to judge in their own time what is quality, what is ART, what stands the test of time and what is not. This is the human condition. You have to just make the best images that you can and not worry about such things. They are out of your hands.

Yeah, but a long sharp lens helps :-)

32
Technology will continue to improve and change to allow photographers to take even more incredible images in the future.

50 or 100 years from now, you'll probably be able to guide a completely silent, flying, remote controlled 100MP camera the size of a hero go pro right up to ...

Now that's a scary thought. Imagine dozens of photographers all flying drones around the same scene? Sheesh! With the stupid human tricks I've seen in our national parks I can't conceive of what might happen!

Technology is NOT always a good thing!

33
Interesting topic - there are a lot of questions, when you start thinking about it. Gear, processing, sales, when will video displace stills,...

How does one distinguish oneself?
As far as the photo is concerned, I think it comes down to the right gear, used in the right way, with the right composition, and with that little added "something" that you only get by being in the right place at the right time. For instance, I think jrista posted a photo of a couple of doves looking like they were cuddling with their eyes closed. That's the "something".

Camera: The right gear is important but only in so far as you need to have the right resolution, DR, and lack of noise to be able to print your photos at the desired size. For the most part, I'd say 16 x 20 is about the biggest.
Lens: I think the older set of big whites (like my 500 f4 IS USM) is as good as it needs to be. I also [this will raise some hackles] think the old 100-400 was too soft. The new set of supertele primes are as good as lenses need to get and 600 is probably long enough.

Composition: There is something to the "what's left" question. I saw a photo in one of the recent threads that shows that even Tom Manglesen's classic salmon jumping into the bear's mouth has been duplicated (probably many more times than I know). However, composition has to be the key. Photos of a critter standing in a field aren't going to cut it, unless there's a lot more to it - color of the sky, background , etc. 

Along with composition is something I'm a believer in - luck! There's a lot to being in the right place at the right time.

So, once you have the right photo, how do you sell it?  The bigger question that I can't answer is how do you distinguish yourself from all the other photographers. I've got no opinion and no experience on that one. Not only is the heap of data increasing, as you've mentioned, the number of people taking photos is increasing, too. Fifteen or twenty years ago there weren't nearly as many people with cameras in the national parks (maybe not as many people, period). These days, "Everybody is a wildlife photographer". I wish I had a photo of the time I was in Yellowstone. A fox family had denned near the road and the Rangers had a series of poles set out 25 yds from the den. There was a solid line of 20 or 30 photographers along the poles, all with long lenses (mostly big whites), from countries all around the world.
And part of that "everybody is a wildlife photographer" is (for me at least ) the thought that "I could do that". To be honest, I wouldn't buy someone else's wildlife photo.

Finally, I'm not taking wildlife photos to get rich -actually, it kind of goes the other way :-)
My wife (I'm fortunate in having a wife who enjoys wildlife, too) and I have learned a lot about animal behavior over the years by watching. Selling photos would be nice (but I really haven't pushed myself on that yet) but watching the critters speaks to something in the human psyche, I think. Also, having good photos to give to friends and family is nice.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:41:12 PM »

Start with this:

Sharpening 40, Radius 1, Detail 25, Masking 40
Luminance NR 40, Detail 90, Contrast 0
Color NR 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50

Messing around:  For more detail, try increasing the first two detail sliders (say, 30 and 100) and sharpening (say, 50-60).  For more NR, try increasing L-NR without decreasing detail first.

thanks

35
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:36:52 PM »

Yes, I do realize this thread is about IQ and noise, but that shouldn't be the main reason to buy or not but the 7d2. But you take a fantastic shot with perfect focus in a ridicolous fast pace situation and that epic moment, or would you like a miss focused shot that is superclean with 14 stops of DR? Then buy another camera.


I don't care how accurate the focus is if the RAW file is noisy at 1600 ISO and higher. Cleaning the noise will reduce the sharpness, so what good is it?

...

And if you think a properly focused image gets as soft as a OOF shot with less noise, well then I don't what to say, other than you're doing it wrong.




...

I don't care how accurate the focus is if the RAW file is noisy at 1600 ISO and higher. Cleaning the noise will reduce the sharpness, so what good is it?

Baloney.  It would take a hell of a lot of noise reduction to reduce real resolution as much as a tiny bit of missed focus does.

Well,  I can always "spray and pray" - in other words, I have a chance of getting an in-focus shot. At ISO 1600 or higher with my 7D, it doesn't matter how many shots I take because it will always be noisy.

[No sarcasm] It could well be that I'm doing NR wrong and if you have any suggestions, I would appreciate them. Generally, I always see a reduction in sharpness when I apply NR in Lightroom.

If you look at the closeups of the 400 ISO and 1600 ISO with NR you can see a difference in the level of detail.

Believe me, If the 7Dii has better performance at 1600 and above than the 70D, I'll be very happy. We'll just have to wait for the RAW files.



36
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:08:27 PM »
...This camera is a sports/bif dream if you ask me....

And the anti-flickering mode for fluorecent light? Are you kidding me? That is a game changer...
 

A "game changer" for bif and wildlife? - I've taken tens of thousands of shots with my 7D and NONE of them were under fluorescent lights.


Do you think all people shoot the same as you, or do you think perhaps there are asport shooters that shoot exclusively in fluorecent environment? Cus I know a few of them, and I know what they feel about the flickering.

I never said game changer for bif and wildlife. I said it was superb if you're not in the high end 1d market. I said the anti flickering mode is a game changer, and it is.
Sorry, I was coming from the perspective of the 7D as a wildlife and (outside) sports still shooting. And, to me, the anti-flicker is not something I have ever thought about.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:22:04 PM »
...This camera is a sports/bif dream if you ask me....

And the anti-flickering mode for fluorecent light? Are you kidding me? That is a game changer...
 

A "game changer" for bif and wildlife? - I've taken tens of thousands of shots with my 7D and NONE of them were under fluorescent lights.



Yes, I do realize this thread is about IQ and noise, but that shouldn't be the main reason to buy or not but the 7d2. But you take a fantastic shot with perfect focus in a ridicolous fast pace situation and that epic moment, or would you like a miss focused shot that is superclean with 14 stops of DR? Then buy another camera.


I don't care how accurate the focus is if the RAW file is noisy at 1600 ISO and higher. Cleaning the noise will reduce the sharpness, so what good is it?

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:00:52 AM »
I feel as if (and this only my opinion which is worthless) the ones doing the crying are not the people who the 7DII is aimed for.

....
Meanwhile sports / wildlife photographers are quietly pre-ordering. If I was a sports photographer I'd be pretty excited to have the 7D II either as a back up or main camera. I have a feeling once some solid reviews come around and people get to feel how easy the camera is to work with (loved my 7D ergonomics) things will calm down.

I thought the 7D was an amazing camera but on paper when it was compared to say a 60D there didn't seem to be all that much different. Once you actually use the 7D you start to realize that it's a beast and is built to last. The IQ was it's Achilles heel but hopefully that issue will be addressed to a satisfactory level and what we'll get is a highly refined machine!

Not all the wildlife photographers are pre-ordering.
I've been using a 7D since October of 2009 for wildlife and I've been hoping for a sensor update from Canon for literally years. At the moment there are many opinions being expressed about the high ISO performance - some say its great, others that its not much better than the 70D, so I'll wait. The high ISO performance is the most important thing that was lacking with the 7D (followed closely by AF performance).
If its true that the ISO performance isn't much better than the 70D, I won't be buying a 7Dii at all. It really doesn't matter how well focused your photos are if they're still so noisy at 1600 ISO that you have to apply NR to the point you lose that sharpness.

39
Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:01:24 PM »
My wildlife photography varies from pink-sided juncos (a small bird in the western US) to grizzly bears and my opinion is go long and go prime. While the versaility of the zooms can be a real advantage (to be honest, there have been situations that I had too much lens), you simply can't beat the sharpness of the 500 f4 or 600 f4. I own the old 500 f4 and while it was pricey (at the time, now a deal compared to the II versions) I've never regretted buying it.


40
EOS Bodies / Re: Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 19, 2014, 06:41:45 PM »
So, the 7Dii is a failure because:
1. It's noisier than the 5Diii
2. It can't do 4K video
3. It doesn't have a brand new sensor
4. It's screen doesn't tilt
5. No wifi

65AF points. ITR. 10fps. Intervelometer. Increased buffer. Autofocus at f/8.0. Spot metering on AF point. All these things doesn't stop the 7Dii from being a useless, no good, piece of crap camera. Apparently...

IMO there are only two things the 7Dii needed to do, improved AF (not so much the 61 points, just more accurate AF, period) and, more importantly, much better performance at ISO 1600 (ideally, similar to the Exmor). If the high ISO isn't appreciably better than the 70D as some are saying, the rest of it doesn't matter and I see no reason to buy a 7Dii, unfortunately.

41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 19, 2014, 02:28:13 PM »
Having GPS allows government snooping :( If you have GPS, NSA will always know where you and your camera are located :( I know, I know privacy is a thing from the past and will never be seen again :(

Using WiFi to communicate with a client's iPad, etc is a money maker :)
Not that I worry about govt snooping on my GPS but that reminds me of a question - how hard would the Canon wifi systems be to hack? Could some malicious hacker format your card?

42
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:26:00 AM »
Absolutely don't need wifi.
I shoot RAW exclusively so I don't need to upload anything and I'm generally out in the weeds so I have no need for remote operation.

GPS - I wouldn't complain if I had it (and could turn it off)
Useful for location tagging and, as someone mentioned in another thread, returning to a location for landscape photo year after year. But as far as using my camera as a compass? Hadn't occurred to me. And, I'd rather use the battery life for photos.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Chuck Westfall Talks Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:21:26 AM »
The silence regarding the high iso performance was deafening. One remark in passing about Digic 6 noise reduction but I'm not sure what that means for ISO above 800.
Sadly, it sounds like moving the 7Dii to video is more important to Canon.
Very disappointed.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 01:55:42 PM »

And just like Neuro, this was one of my most frequently used mode :D


Zone AF was your most frequently used mode? What types of photography are you doing? For my wildlife stuff, I use spot AF / AI servo with my 7D almost exclusively. I have trouble enough getting the focus I want with that and can't see how zone AF would work.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: How excited are you about the new 7D II?
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:43:26 AM »
Not at all, yet, even though I've been waiting for years.
I need to see some RAW files at 1600 ISO before I can decide. If its like the 70D, I'm very disappointed.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19