Forgot, shot with a canon 5d Mark ii.
Let me know what you think.

Nice discussion gentlemen, I am reading with great interest!

Don Haines said:

Ruined said:

StudentOfLight said:

I still think single SD or CF card could cause a bottleneck in the data pipepline. If you do the calculations you'll see that 24MP at 10fps is a higher data rate than the 1DX so I doubt it will actually be that much. It is more likely to be around 23.3MP (like 5D-III) and 9fps, which would still be an improvement on the 7D. Those numbers at least seem to be inline with the capability of the dual-digic5+ architecture as seen in the 1DX.

Click to expand...

If you have a 95mbps SD card and the slot/chipset supports full speed 95mbps then single SD slot should be no problem. If an older tech slot/controller on the camera is used then it may be.

i.e. one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Class-Memory-SDSDXPA-032G-X46/dp/B005LFT3QG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1383605671&sr=8-5&keywords=sd+extreme+pro

Click to expand...

You can't really use the number of frames per second or the number of megapixels to argue if the slot is SD or CF without considering the buffer size. Nothing states how many shots before the buffer fills or what the size of the buffer is. Make the buffer bigger and you can live a lot longer with a slower storage card...

If you want to run continuous, assuming 32Mbyte per raw image and 12FPS, you are looking at 384MBytes/sec sustained transfer speed.... that's 32 times the speed of your 95Mbit/sec SC card or 6 times the speed of a 160Mbyte/second Sandisk Extreme Pro CF card. ( Read speed is 160MB/sec, write speed is 65MB/sec). Whatever technology they put in the 7D2 for card slot, it is the buffer size that has the most impact.....

If you assumed a 2 second burst and a buffer big enough to hold 2 seconds at 12FPS:
SD - 25 frames and 64 seconds to clear it
CF - 29 frames and 12 seconds to clear it

Does anyone really think that Canon would make a semi-pro camera that can sit there for over a minute trying to clear the buffer? The smart money is on CF.

Click to expand...

Hi Don, Thanks for correcting me on number of cards and valuable info on buffer size.

I can be quite lengthy in my replies sometimes and browser ends up timing-out, so I type responses in text editor and cut+paste into the forum. Sometimes I try to rearrange sentences and fail horribly. The first line my paragraph has nothing to do with rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is discussing DD5+ capability and the shooting speed of the rumored 7D-II it has nothing to do with number of cards. Apologies.

I would echo the suggestion of the 70-200 f2.8L Mark II and the 40 f2.8. I don't have the 24-70, instead, I have the 24-105 f4. The 24-105 offers greater range, but I still prefer the 70-200 most of the time.

This all depends upon what you shoot. For me, it's most often sports (mostly indoor) and events (people candids) with some portrait stuff. The 70-200 on a FF body is a great range to isolate you subject. Note that at events, I also like to stay in the background and out of the way. It's only for those "establishing" shots and group photos that I go to the shorter zoom or a shorter prime.

For me, the jump from 40mm to 70mm isn't a big deal. If the 40 is a little too wide I can either move closer or crop. Granted, it is nice to have all focal lengths covered between 24 and 200, but I don't get too hung up on not having the full range between 40 and 70.

Just last night I shot grade school musical (basically choirs and school bands) with the 70-200. I used a 35 2.0 for some establishing shots of the venue and crowd, but everything else was with the 70-200. I have no problem getting a group of kids in the shot or zeroing in on one or two. I had my 24-105 with me, but didn't use it because I didn't need anything wider than the 35.

I also find that the 70-200 is great for portraits -- up to 2 in an average living, or larger groups outside. If individuals are the subject matter, I try to avoid the wider focal lengths which can be less than flattering.

AlanF said:

discojuggernaut said:

I don't use the dumb leather hat/cover. Just grab an appropriate-sized tupperware cover from the wife when she's sleeping.

Click to expand...

The II has fabric cover with Velcro. It's an improvement over the leather. Lost it once, but it's so big it was handed in to the nature centre.

Click to expand...

Yes, the new cover is a huge improvement over the old design and it's pretty hard to lose. It's $120 to replace, though! I bought the LensCoat Hoodie XX Large (kept it and returned the Lenscoat) and it's a little easier to use, with the hood on, fits in your pocket, and is only $16 if lost.

Also, I found the Ape Case Large Lens Ape Case (ACPROLC18) for $40 and it holds the 300 with room for extenders and just fits the lens with the hood extended.
http://apecase.com/products/lens-cases/pro-lens-cases/acprolc18-professional-large-lens-case/
It's pretty cool when the hard case is too big.

So basically what you are saying is that in another six months or so, Sony will be out with a new mount

Just wondering if anyone here has earned any photographic honours? If so, do you have any tips for those starting out? I've just been reading that it might be best to focus on prints, as there might be a little less competition in relation to acceptances. Does anyone know if that's the case?

Hi!

I'm new to this forum but here are my comparison between these two cameras.

Both are APS-C sensors and light weight bodies. For sure the EOS M is smaller, lighter, especially used with pancakes lenses.

The big advantage of the EOS M over all other reflexes is its short flange to sensor distance. Design and fabricate the proper CNC adaptor and you can fit almost all lenses produced since the earliest days of photography.

The big disadvantage of the EOS M is that Canon, for unknown reasons, have obliterated most of EOS Utilities functions (when connected to a computer), mainly :
- no remote liveview on a computer screen
- no remote focus control
- no tethered shooting
- no RAW export on the computer
Therefore, persons who intended to use this body for Stop Motion movies, nature / wildlife automatic detection or timelapse shooting, astronomy photos shall considere another body.

The 100D is lightweight though slightly heavier and bigger than the EOS M. It does not suffer the limitations on EOS Utilities and works like any other EOS body. However, it has the same flange to sensor distance as the other EOS.

Fred

I agree with the sentiment above about the 300 being very versatile with the extenders (i have both mkII's with the IS mkI). It is a great piece of handholdable kit that performs well with the 2x, great with the 1.4x, and amazing naked. Great AF, decent IS, and incredible image quality and bokeh with almost no difference in sharpness stopped down. I was fortunate enough to find one at a decent price in excellent condition used on craigslist (it had camo protective gear so the finish looks brand new) and have loved every time i've pulled it out. I would only consider selling it to fund a mkII version or a 500 f/4 (i shoot kiteboarding, events, portraits).

;D

Ruined said:

neuroanatomist said:

drob said:

If you look around at other child photographers and their work, many are shooting with prime lenses and/or 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 lens. You'd be hard pressed to find any photographer taking pics of children with a kit lens.

Click to expand...

Depends on where you look. Many portrait studios use 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses on APS-C bodies, and they work fine. When you have control over lighting (and lots of it) and background, f/6.3-8 works well.

Click to expand...

This is true. There is a massive misconception that pros usually do portraits at f/2 and below, while if in controlled setting usually the opposite is true. If you have proper lighting, best results are often gotten at f/8 instead of f/2.

Click to expand...

While generally agreeing with the convo, there's one more misconception in your statement. Most lenses are not at their sharpest at f8. One can view that during a simple Focal test. Quite a few of my L are at their sharpest at f5.6.

Dick said:

The spider shots look great. They might be a little soft because of cropping or something, but still very good. Add a little contrast to the jumping spiders and call it a day! What aperture did you use for those pictures?

Click to expand...

Oh, the aperture for the jumping spider was at f/22, and 1/200 ISO 100.

This is Karla, my pet jumping spider:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swiftrandomness94/10682496784/#

I just took these. Is that enough contrast?

privatebydesign said:

90% 100-200iso; 8% 400-800iso; 2% either under 100 or over 800.

Click to expand...

I suspect that I'm the same. When I get home tonight, I'll have a look at the exact numbers (but this might be thrown out by night-time timelapse photos, which I normally shoot at 1600). Most of my photos tend to be deliberately planned, tripod mounted shots where I want the best possible IQ. Plus lately I've been getting into long exposure shots, and low ISOs help me obtain longer exposures. ISO 100 is where I live.

Re changing brands/cameras to get better IQ. Its never really occurred to me. I'm happy with Canon and prefer their cameras and lenses. I don't really choose cameras on IQ, but on other features. My latest purchase was theoretically a downgrade in IQ - to an APS-C Fuji X-E1. But even it produces great photos. My reasons for purchasing it included it being enjoyable to use, it has a smaller/more socially acceptable body, direct access dials, better IR performance and better AF with IR filters and ND filters. I'm one of those people for whom, once image quality reaches an acceptable level, it ceases being an important deciding factor.

It's not realistic to label all 3rd party batteries as sub-standard. Sometimes you get crap, even from Canon. If throwing your hard earned cash out the window makes you feel better, buy Canon batteries. I'm perfectly comfortable with 3rd party batteries. I have used a few different brands.

I can get 4 Wasabi batteries and two chargers including car adapters for the price of one Canon battery. In use, my 3rd party batteries have been in distinguishable from my Canon batteries. They last as long and are fully recognized and functional with all of my cameras (2 x 5D III, 2 x 5D II, 7D and 60D).

It's not uncommon for me to go out packing three or four bodies for a full day shoot. I will also take along a half dozen or so spare batteries. I always carry extra batteries, just in case, but rarely need them.

Everyone has their own opinions about what's important and we also have our own comfort zones.

That said, I'll save my money for something I do consider worthwhile... Better glass...

Eldar said:

They look good enough to make a more thorough review by some of the more reputable sites more interesting. We don´t know anything about what body they used and how the images were processed though.

Click to expand...

It's the Sigma SD1 - this is why I said center sharpness

How they were processed is not super relevant to me. I process my pictures too, so I'm more interested in the potential of a lens more than how JPGs OOC look.

I am eagerly waiting for more Sigma lenses to come out that are dock-compatable. I think it is a good idea and one that the other manufacturers will probably be copying soon.

Take the 5DIII or you will regret. Keep the 5DII as a back-up if you can.

AlanF said:

They are much, much better at 600mm than you would have expected from the TDP iso tests.

Click to expand...

Stop down 2/3 of a stop to f6.3 and it sharpens up nicely. Its certainly a sharp lens, it's nearly as sharp as a Canon prime no question. I'm not sure I'd want to use a 2x TC on a 1.6x crop camera...that's pushing it a bit too far for critical sharpness. But on a full frame, a 2 x TC and a stop drop works very well. I used a Canon 2x mkII and a Canon 1.4x mkII & III. The 1.4x hardly drops any quality and can easily be used wide open. The 2X, not quite so well.

wickidwombat said:

I know i'm right on this

Click to expand...

And yet so wrong...

Don Haines said:

wickidwombat said:

Ricku said:

Oh little EOS M. What are you going to do now that Sony has launched their EF-capable A7 and A7R?

Just go FF or go home.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about this the other day
all they would have to do is take a 6D bits as is whack it into an EOS-M body with EF Mount and it would sell tons
have a hotshoe mountable EVF as an option perhaps
not sure if the EOS-M body is deep enough though to mount the sensor far enough back and retain the needed depth for the EF lens image circle projection.
of course this would bury the 6D sales but then they would bring out the 6Dmk2 with better AF wouldn't they

Click to expand...

a 6D sensor would not solve the big problem with the EOS-M.... slow focus speed.. Let's see what happens if they put a 70D sensor into it....

Click to expand...

And if you limit it to EF lenses and made the body 26 mm deeper, you'd still have an off-balance rig with huge lenses on a tiny little camera body.

Now if you made it compatible with EF-M, EF-S, and EF lenses (throwing away a third of the pixels when attached to EF-S and EF-M lenses), then you'd have something that was at least usable, but you'd still have horrible autofocus with EF lenses because they tend to block the IR focus assist beam. To make a full-frame mirrorless camera, you need to start with a 6D-sized body (or bigger) and move the sensor forward or otherwise make it thinner, not start with a current EF-M body and try to stuff in a larger sensor.

Of course, you'd still have the inherent problem of distortion caused by adapter slump....

35 for environmental portrait.
50 for cba to change lenses and it's for fun, not work (because canon's 1.4 sucks)
85 for portraits or medium distance action
135 for indoor sports and making men look manly

Canon has to register their AC adapters and test them for RF interference. The Chinese don't. Make sure that the adapter is at least certified by a safety agency like Underwriters Laboratories (US). Fire and shock hazards can be avoided.

Then you only need to be concerned about damage to your camera rather than losing your life. And, if its a registered product, it is not likely to hurt your equipment.

As an owner of the 1D-X, I'm sorta disappointed with it. Don't get me wrong, I love what it is but disappointed that it should have been more. Many times I wished I had stepped down from the 1-series bodies but I thought that was a bad idea as well. I really love the 1-series bodies.

While bigger photosites are "always" better, that concept must be balanced with resolution. After all, nobody wants one photosite (imagine how noise free it would be! LOL). Of course, then the questions comes "What resolution is enough?" This is where everybody has their own opinion. Maybe it would be better if Canon also made a low light specific camera (a reasonable but respectable resolution) separate from a high resolution focus camera.

I've always felt that Canon's flagship camera should also have the highest resolution and best technology. Don't hate me, but I also want video and was very disappointed that Canon made a 1D-C. Just because a camera has video in no way detracts from its photo capture ability.

Sidenote: Honestly, if the Canon 1D-C was only 4k (at 4096, not TV's 3840) in resolution in both photo and video might make a pretty bad ass camera setup. I would definitely pay $7k for that, not sure if I would pay $15k but it would be tempting (especially if it has 60p and a global shutter). This would also make an awesome low light camera too.

Since most of my work is in a controlled lighting situation, I want a higher resolution. Something around 30 megapixels would have been enough when the 1D-X was released but today I think Canon needs to make a statement against Nikon and produce something around 40.

Great video. I wish the video was longer. Well done.

Neuro always knows what you are thinking.