October 22, 2014, 03:24:24 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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 68
EOS Bodies / Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« on: March 23, 2012, 12:21:37 AM »
have you actually used it or just looking at internet waffle?
This camera is awesome period.
I feel like a veil has been lifted going from the 5D2 to this
I was never unhappy with the IQ from the mk2

The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%.

I understand that judging a camera merely by the "wow factor" of its  images is far too subjective for tech heads, but that's fine by me because photography is a subjective medium. I also concede that the D800 seems to top the 5DIII in many technical benchmarks at a lower price, but that's OK too, because its advantages aren't enough to make me a better photographer.

IMHO, the 5DII was a smashing success not because of how well it performed in a lab, but rather due to the stunning quality of its images. The 5DII's files had a certain "look" that was immensely appealing to pros and hobbyists alike, and based on early user feedback, the 5DIII will continue that tradition. If this is what Canon can accomplish with a $h!tty sensor, I'm not complaining :)

EOS Bodies / Re: How "raw" are raw files?
« on: March 21, 2012, 04:32:25 PM »
Both Canon and Nikon ALREADY use processing to increase the dynamic range of RAW files. Nikon's processing is several times more advanced than Canon's though.

Very interesting. So is the Sony/Nikon Exmor sensor that much better than Canon's full-frame sensors, or is some of its advantage in DR attributable to better in-camera processing? Is contrast and color reproduction/saturation also tweaked by in camera before the information is recorded as a raw file?

IMHO, all that really matters is the end product, regardless how large of a role in-camera processing and the sensor itself plays in the equation. I suppose the notion that raw images accurately reflect sensor performance is bogus, but not quite as bogus as a jpeg.

EOS Bodies / Re: How "raw" are raw files?
« on: March 21, 2012, 03:18:03 PM »
I wouldn't worry about this as this is what we get and is the best that Canon engineers have deemed we will have and we can't change that unless there is a firmware update.

I'm not worried about it at all. I trust the egghead engineers at Canon have done their homework and created algorithms that produce the best raw files as possible. If each manufacturer applies some processing to all its raw files, then I find it somewhat silly to so heavily scrutinize raw files as if they're a genuine representation of sensor technology. 

EOS Bodies / How "raw" are raw files?
« on: March 21, 2012, 02:30:10 PM »
With all the comparisons of high ISO raw files that's been going on lately, my pea brain needs some clarification on a few issues. My understanding has always been that raw files represent the information that the camera actually captures in its purest form, with no manipulation whatsoever. However, others have mentioned that Nikon bodies "cook" their files by applying in-camera noise reduction. Obviously, at that point a raw file doesn't represent what the camera captured in it's purest form, and therefore does not accurately represent the performance of the sensor. Does Canon do the same thing with its raw files?

This raises a few more issues. If a camera applies noise reduction to its raw files, what's to say that it can't extend dynamic range with in-camera processing as well? I defer whether or not extending DR of raw files via in-camera software is even possible to the real tech heads on here, but if a camera did do this, how would you even know unless a manufacturer disclosed this info in its literature? 

On one hand, I can see why you'd want a true, unprocessed raw file as a means of measuring sensor performance. On the other hand, if in-camera processing is sophisticated enough to improved overall IQ to the point where that a photographer can't even tell that in-camera processing was applied in the first place, who really cares?

Landscape / Re: Post your best HDR Photographs
« on: March 21, 2012, 01:35:40 PM »
From someone who isn't too crazy about HDR, most of these are very nicely done! Great work, fellas!

EOS Bodies / Re: Why the Japan hate Canon
« on: March 21, 2012, 01:27:11 PM »
yeah.... the 4,200 AUD translates to 4,529 USD. makes me completely unsympathetic to the Americans who are complaining about the price.

Bahumbug. Have you seen how fat we Americans are? We need to save as much money on camera gear as possible so we can spend it on fried chicken and pork chops :D

EOS Bodies / Re: Humidity
« on: March 21, 2012, 01:24:22 PM »
Whenever you bring your camera outside (in extremely humid places- not limited to FL), put it in a dry bag/sack.  Let the body acclimate to the temperature and pull it out of the bag.  This will minimize condensation on the lens and inside/outside of the body. 

Great advice. I've had to learn this the hard way.

IMHO, the 85% humidity rating is conservative. I've shot many, many  times in 90% or more humidity in the vicious Houston heat without any problems with my 20D and 5DC, both of which have no weather sealing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Comparometer! 5D mkiii vs your current camera
« on: March 20, 2012, 03:21:27 PM »
I shoot a lot of HDRI (I know many of you already hate me) but it has been a lucrative part of my pro and art photography and I find the uniqueness of images I can create using it gives me freedom to move beyond the limitations of a single exposure and into a more realistic approximation of how the human visual system is constantly merging vastly different lighting conditions into a visual representation of the world around us (sorry for the jargon, but I'm studying sensory systems in my PhD work).

I've never been shy about expressing my disdain for HDR, but in reviewing your, it's obvious that you're very adept at tastefully executing this technique. I'm all for HDR as long as it's used to create an image that more closely resembles what the human eye would capture. Even if it's pushed a bit beyond that point, that's fine by me as long as it adds to the artistic execution of the image.

The type of HDR I can't stand are images that have no redeeming qualities whatsoever that have been processed to look like cartoons. Ultimately, all that does is create a poorly composed, poorly lit image that looks like a cartoon. It's a gimmick that needs to go away, but it sure does get you a lot of e-high-fives on Flickr from people that know nothing about photography :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D classic intro price? $3299.95?
« on: March 20, 2012, 12:12:14 PM »
Looking through old magazines the other day--November '05 Outdoor Photog--and see an ad for the 5D classic--$3299,95!  Was that the price they originally went for?  Make the III seem a bit more tolerable...

That sounds about right. Considering that the only other full-frame body at the time was $8,000, everyone thought the 5D was a bargain at $3,300.

EOS Bodies / Buying a 5DII on a whim
« on: March 19, 2012, 08:25:01 PM »
I met up with a buddy of mine this weekend who is the editor of a big muscle car magazine to cover an autocross event together. He's a very accomplished photographer and does some outstanding work. During the middle of the autocross, his 1DsII - which has seen a ton of mileage over the last 8 years - took a dump. It's nothing terminal, just the dreaded "Error 99," but something that couldn't be fixed in the field. I let him borrow one of my backup bodies to get him through the event, but he jumped on the phone ASAP to order up a replacement body for another shoot he had the following week.

Him: The guy on the phone says he has a 5D Mark II, is that what you have?

Me: No, I use 5D for statics, and a 1DII for action. I'm getting a 5DIII any day now, but it hasn't been released yet.

Him: What's the difference?

Me: Better AF, faster burst rate, cleaner high ISO files, dual card slots.

Him: Well, I hardly ever use AF, and don't need fast FPS. I really like the IQ of the images you send me with your 5D, so I'm sure the 5D Mark II will be more than enough for me.     

Me: Yeah, IQ wise the 5D Mark II is a great camera. That's what Bobby (a mutual friend and fellow photog) uses.

Him: OK, then I know for sure that I'll be happy with the 5DII's IQ.

Me: You can get them for around $2,000 right now because the 5DIII's are about to be released. The 5DIII is hard to get right now and costs $3,500.

Him: I don't want to spend that much. This is just going to be my personal camera until I can get company approval to expense on new body. I'll go with the 5DII.

I know this is an extreme example, but our conversation lasted two minutes at most. I just found it funny how people can deliberate/argue/scream/cry for months on which camera to get, mulling over specs and sample images (I'm guilty of this too!). On the other hand, I watched as a working pro reached a purchasing decision in two minutes based solely on the quality of images submitted to him from other photographers using the body he's interested in.

EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrading from "x" to the 5D3
« on: March 19, 2012, 08:02:47 PM »
5DC and 1DIIn. I'll be keeping one of them as a backup, but I hate the thought of selling either of them. I love them both.

Canon General / Re: Canon still preferred choice by professionals
« on: March 19, 2012, 11:47:07 AM »
IMHO, pros are much more heavily invested into lenses, accessories, etc than someone stepping up from point-and-shoot into a $500 DSLR, so even if Nikon releases a superior product, it has to be substantially better than the Canon alternative for people to seriously consider switching systems.

True, but the students of today are the pros of tommorow.   One of the reasons Canon has done so well over the last decade is they have such a strong 'entry level=>pro' upgrade path, so when people are just getting started out Canon has a good lineup for them to explore and as their careers progress they have better options.

Nikon, if it wants to expand its market, is not going to go after established photographers with their brand loyalty/investment,.. or at minimal they would be foolish to.. no, what they would have to do is go after the newbies and students.

I wouldn't dispute that. The entry level of DSLRs segment is where brand loyalty is built. The  beginning of my career just happened to coincide with the dawn of the digital age, when Nikon was a joke and Canon offered a far better product. That's the reason why I invested in the Canon system and continue to shoot Canon to this day. That said, Nikon has made tremendous strides since then and it would be a much more difficult decision today for up-and-coming photographers to choose brands.

The advantage Canon has due to dominating the pro market is that those pros will usually recommend Canon gear to other people. It also gives Canon an image of perceived superiority regardless of the quality of the product. People might think "hey, if all those pros shoot Canon, it must be better."

Some people think that this has led to complacency at Canon. Maybe there is some truth to this, but IMHO Canon still puts out a great product. Internet dweebs are really hung up on bodies, but when I see Canon releasing radio flashes and developing a ton of new lenses, it shows me their commitment to offering the best overall system on the market.

With all the stink about the 5DIII and D800, you'd think that every last stop of DR and noise is what separates a great image from a terrible image. Now that these camera have started hitting the streets, what do we have? People posting a bunch of snapshots with $3,000-$3,500 bodies that could have easily been captured with point-and-shoots.

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: March 18, 2012, 10:00:06 PM »
Thanks! What kind of car is that?

Canon General / Re: Canon still preferred choice by professionals
« on: March 18, 2012, 09:59:25 PM »
Yes, I wonder if it is that Nikon are getting a better share of the new entrants?

I think that's a safe assumption. The pros I run across primarily shoot Canon, but among the typical consumers at the same events, the mix between Canon and Nikon is pretty even. IMHO, that's why Nikon's underwhelming products in the early-to-mid '00s hurt them so badly. IMHO, pros are much more heavily invested into lenses, accessories, etc than someone stepping up from point-and-shoot into a $500 DSLR, so even if Nikon releases a superior product, it has to be substantially better than the Canon alternative for people to seriously consider switching systems. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII Fastest SD Card
« on: March 18, 2012, 09:46:18 PM »
Any of you tech heads know of the lack of UHS-1 compatibility is a hardware limitation, or something that can possibly be attained with a firmware update?

Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 68