May 30, 2016, 04:52:13 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 80d vs. 7D MKII
« Last post by Travelintrevor on May 29, 2016, 10:54:13 AM »
my second part:
Note: any softness when viewing at 100% is because I was being a dork and shot this at 1/125 at 600mm...doh!
Talk about not using a camera and it's functions correctly....also, no sharpening applied.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 80d vs. 7D MKII
« Last post by Travelintrevor on May 29, 2016, 10:52:41 AM »

Because in the end, the quality of the photo gets determined by the quality of the sensor in digital photography. So preference should go to the better sensor.

Greetings Haggie,

So much more goes into determining the quality of the photo than the sensor. Light, color, composition, focus, etc. 

A great sensor can't make up for a missed photo so your reasoning/logic does not hold true for a myriad of situations. IMO, you are rationalizing your purchasing decision so you may need to slow down?

The difference between the sensors in the 80D and 7D Mk II (and the D500 for that matter) are minor but the difference in everything else is huge. Are we to dismiss all those? If so, why bother adding those amazing functions?

I can program in a minimum shutter and a maximum shutter (alon gwith ISO and f stop) in my 7D MK II; it has an amazing auto ISO function; in manual mode, I can change lenses that have different f stops and zoom in and out with variable aperture lenses AND still get the exposure I set at the start and so much more.

I really enjoy my wife's T5i because of the flip touch screen but when I need speed, performance, etc. I reach for my 5D Mk III or 7D MK II. The sensor in the T5i has more DR (no banding in the shadows when pushing exposure) than my 5D MK III but I would never say it gives better quality photos.

Here are some examples of a pushed exposure. One is extreme, the other (in the second post due to file limitations) is more reasonable and the exposure was set for the highlights.

If you need more latitude than these examples....then you may need a sony sensor.  The 7D Mk II sensor is incredible and a huge step up from the 5D MK III. I have seen the 80D results and see no improvement. Of course I also see no significant difference between the D500 and the 7D Mk II either. I was ready to move to Nikon because of the D500 because of all the hype and then the results....well, I am still with Canon :)

NOTE: NR was set to 37 in LR for the fake pecker shot. I missed focus slightly but had no way of checking since the screen was black in bright sunlight. As an aside, the Sigma 50-100 is a joy to shoot with! Works great on a FF from 85mm-100mm
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 80d vs. 7D MKII
« Last post by haggie on May 29, 2016, 10:49:33 AM »
thanks for your remark, drmikeinpdx.
I too did a lot of airplane photography when I still had my A-1 and my T-90. With my FD 2.5/125 mm and my FD 4.0/80-200 mm I made great shots. The advantage of that type of 35 mm SLR was something that I never read, but in my opinion was fantastic. Even if you could not afford the most expensive Pro SLR-bodies, you could achieve Pro-results. If you just saved and bought the good lenses, and would use a professional film (who remembers: to be stored in the fridge te retain optimal color balance!   8)  ).
In that way you could get the same results as the pro, because the SLR-body (although it determined the ease of use, reliability etc.) had no real influence on the resulting photo.

With digital SLRs that is completely different. It gave manufacturers the possibility to differentiate and build optimised cameras for different situations. That is good.
But it took away the possibility for enthusiasts to get 'pro-results' on a relative budget in the way I just described. That is bad.

That said, todays digital SLR's have an image quality that surpasses the old film, perhaps not always in 'atmosphere', but certainly in capturing details. And post-processing and printing is so much easier than spending hours in the darkroom for only a few prints. So, to be honest, I would not go back to that age.

And yes, I like to think that manual focussing was something that gave good results for fast flying aircraft too. Every pass of a plane I had at least 2 excellent sharp photos. Alas, modern digital cameras do not support manual focus in these circumstances. The lenses rotate very little for a given change in focus, so it is easy to 'overshoot'. And the digital SLR bodies do not have the split focussing screen of those days, which makes accurate but also fast focussing a real challenge. I can honestly say that I tried manual focussing with my 70D and that this is not good for my mood.  ;)
So I think you can say that the old technique no longer works: it is simply no longer supported by the camera bodies and the lenses.

Thanks for your repy, Orangutan.
You are right with your remark that a properly exposed image is the base for everything else.
Of course, my exposure is off at times, but that is not what I meant. In sunny circumstances the underside of a plane fuselage and wings gets several stops under-exposed. The same for the wings of a BIF. That is a fact I cannot change.
I have seen photos taken with a Nikon that seem to give more room to 'pull up' details in the shade than my 70D. That is required, because I cannot control the lighting when shooting airplanes in flight or birds in flight. Of course I could say "the light is too harsh, so I won't shoot photos today", but then I would miss many opportunities. So that is why I am looking for a different camera body. I hope this explains why I look for a better (Canon) body, i.e. a body with a better sensor.

And judging from several tests, the 80D could/should give me better lattitude to correct sub-optimal lighting of the subjects in my photos. It is sad it does not have the 7D MKII's elaborate AF-system. But then it would not doubt be more expensive than the 7D MKII is, so there is no sense for Canon to do so.

Thanks for your explanation, ajfotofilmagem.
I did not know that about the DXOmark method. Because for birds and planes I usually work at 400 ISO (800 ISO if I really must), I am more interested in that higher ISO performance.
This means, I guess, that what I read at DPReview is more relevant than a DXOmark test would be.
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« Last post by candyman on May 29, 2016, 10:48:06 AM »
The common tern
7D mark II + 100-400 II @400mm (640)
1/3200, f/5.6 and ISO 400

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« Last post by dpc on May 29, 2016, 10:45:24 AM »
Badlands, Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, yesterday afternoon.
Industry News / Re: DoF calculator app demo'd for Sony...
« Last post by 3kramd5 on May 29, 2016, 10:41:40 AM »
This all sounds far too complicated. 

Instead, when I press the DOF preview button on my camera, the EVF should simply highlight the areas that are in focus based upon what I consider to be "acceptable" focus (eg I might have higher expectations than a Sony app.)  Essentially, an expanded use of focus peaking.


Why mess with apps or drill down to a menu item you get from hacking the camera firmware.  At least on all of the DSLRs I have owned there has been 1 or more buttons dedicated to showing me exactly what I'll get.  All without the need to believe the accuracy of the calculation.  This all seems like useless entropy generation.

I've owned plenty of DSLRs which wouldn't show me DOF; they didn't have live view, and what you see in the VF isn't what you get (unless you change the stock focus screen out).

On demand customizable focus peeking is essentially what the previous poster is describing and is somewhat (there are three preset sensitivities) available on the Sony alpha cameras, but I personally find it useless. It finds high contrast areas, not necessarily in focus ones. And visual methods are not particularly useful in long exposure / low light scenarios. Those are the ones in which I'm most likely to use hyperfocal techniques. The little OLED display on my Batis lenses shows me my focal length and my DOF (expressed as a + and - from the focal length). If it were shown in the VF that would be even better
not interested in f/1.4 and large, expensive lens.

i'd like to get a very compact, optically very good and very affordable Canon EF 85/1.8 STM IS. Mainly for events and small/club concerts and for street/walka out. i prfer tele over wide-angle most of the time for human subjects.

Sounds like Tamron already build exaclty what you want...

too big, too heavy (700 g), way too expensive (€ 849 where i live!).  i am thinking more about an greatly improved  EF 85/1.8 .. 400g, 58 filter, plus IS ... € 399 or so  :-)

I'm afraid you can't get the same iq with a smaller, lighter design. Even if the new Canon 85 uses the Blue Goo, that appears to require a front and a back element to contain the stuff. The 35mm was awesome, but it felt like a can of glass in the hand.

I sold mine for the Tamron 35 vc. Not qite as perfect iq, but lighter, cheaper, smaller. Asking for something lighter, cheaper and smaller than Tamrons 85 mm - which I also own - with equivalent iq is probably asking for an unprecedented design innovation.

I would be first to buy, but not holding breath.
Third Party Cameras / Re: Anything Shot with a Pentax K1
« Last post by GuyF on May 29, 2016, 10:29:22 AM »
Nice colours and....hold on, shot with a Pentax? Cough, splutter......Kill the heretic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ;)
I did an ACR RAW conversion of the 80D (left) and D7200 (right) at ISO 100.

Pushed 5 stops, equal WB values, no sharpening, everything else left as default.

Someone over on DPR that knows vastly more about sensor and data tech than I do, seems to think the measured DR is lower for the 80D because of the way Canon handles the file data, but in actual use, is probably pretty close to Nikon's best. It will be interesting to see how DXO measures the 80D if it is found that the actual files from it offer the same level of DR as Nikon in real-world use.

Upload you please original raw file this photos? .. Canon 80D and Nikon D7200. Thank you very much
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Being Tested by Photographers
« Last post by Ripley on May 29, 2016, 10:24:16 AM »
It was irrelevant because I'm not looking for a breakthrough / revolutionary product to satiate my lust for new/hot/gamechanging/best things that will give me the tech endorphins I crave.  ::)

I don't dread anything being absent from the 5D4. What A7 feature would one not want in a 5D?

I'm afraid that doesn't clarify very much.  About the only thing the A7 has that's absent in the 5D3 is the Sony sensor; is that what you want in the 5D4?  It would be nice to have some LV features like zebras and focus peaking, but aside from that, doesn't the 5D3 kick the tar out of the A7 series?  The reports I hear from the A7 are that it works great as a landscape camera, but is not quite ready for general use.  There have also been many reports of QA problems, slow service, inadequate function with Canon lenses, etc.

About the only thing I'd want out of the A7 in a 5D4 is the sensor.  Have I missed something?


I'd also enjoy a crack at the A7 app ecosystem.  That will be useful someday if developers get behind it. 

But Orangutan is spot on otherwise.

- A

Sensor stabilization would be great. I have a 50mm Art and a 24-70L II that I would love to use for hand-held video.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]