dhphoto wrote:
200+ frames a day, every day for 3 months is "very moderate use" ?
I was a journalist at a paper. What's so surprising? Moderate use = no shooting dirtbike championships or using the camera as a blunt weapon of self-defense. Just the stuff around the city. And if you're saying that having shutter failure after just 18K clicks is all right... well, obviously you have different standards than me.
Remind me not to buy a camera from you!
I'm not selling mine anyways.
svassh wrote:
I got the sense he was bummed out and disappointed his new toy didn't work out. Based on knowing you are a FM er and stand behind your sales I don't think anyone should hesitate to purchase from you. In fact I would even leave you positive feedback just for your professionalism and refund.
.....
Thanks for the kind words.
I am not upset with Cam, I see where he is coming from. This camera had a very low shutter count and once he saw banding I am sure he felt he had been sold a defective camera. When I initially purchased the camera I was hesitant about the low shutter count as well since I was going to be the 3rd owner.
The following finds calmed my initial fears. After some digging around, I was able to find the sale listing by the original owner on FM buy&sell boards. Also the inventory sticker placed by the retailer on the camera box was dated 11/24/2008 so it was sold sometime after that, so essentially in the worst case scenario, I was getting a body that was just over two years when I bought it (April 2011).
Anyways, this has been an interesting exercise in pushing this camera to its limits ISO wise. Combined with LR3 noise reduction (as the picture of my daughter playing hockey shows) I am even more distressed about selling this camera. Especially since I haven't seen any banding in the ISO 1600 and 3200 tests I have done since yesterday. However one of the bodies has to go, other wise I cannot get the lens I really want.
PetKal wrote:
Howdy, Larry.
The irony is that my main 1DMkIIN blew its shutter recently at 50,000 counts. And I though I didn't need a backup 1DMkIIN.
Well, Larry, I hope you are using 200 f/1.8, and that it is serving you very well.
Hi Peter,
Good to hear from you.
If you'd like, I can sell you/return your old IDMKIIn. It has about 10 more clicks on it since purchased. Based on this limited use, I have convinced myself that I need a MKIV upgrade.
However, I'd rather sell my kidney(s) than your old 200 1.8. Nobody gets "My Precious"!
ananda wrote:
.....
Anyways, this has been an interesting exercise in pushing this camera to its limits ISO wise. Combined with LR3 noise reduction (as the picture of my daughter playing hockey shows) I am even more distressed about selling this camera. Especially since I haven't seen any banding in the ISO 1600 and 3200 tests I have done since yesterday. However one of the bodies has to go, other wise I cannot get the lens I really want.
Just to clear any confusion. By being distressed, I didn't mean I was upset the sale didn't go through, instead I am rather upset that I cannot keep the camera and have to sell it (especially after discovering the LR3 noise reduction).
PetKal wrote:
Good shooting, Artsupreme.
It took me almost two years to figure out AF behaviours which you seem to have covered in one shooting session.
Thanks Petkal it's very similar to shooting the different types of racing I shoot but I can appreciate the challenge of getting that perfect "Pijun" shot with a nice backdrop and good lighting. One would definitely need to find the right location (beach houses don't make for a good BG) with a that sort of "Pijun Highway" where they fly. And then to catch one near MFD with a wide open aperture on a big Tele? I could see why the keeper rate for those is low, those things fly erratically.
mttran wrote:
Artsupreme, great shots and thanks for comparison. I assumed 2N and 7D have the same iso setting
No, I had 2N at 100 and 7D at 200 because it needs faster SS. If 2N at 200 then 7D at 400 and so on...the purpose here is to attempt to get "crisp" shots out of the 7D like the 2N delivers.
artsupreme wrote:
No, I had 2N at 100 and 7D at 200 because it needs faster SS. If 2N at 200 then 7D at 400 and so on...the purpose here is to attempt to get "crisp" shots out of the 7D like the 2N delivers.
Thanks, 2N file is definitely smoother but 7D file is still not bad at low iso range while compared to its double resolution & smaller sensor size.
I agree with your and Peter's overall comparison, pretty much my AF experience.
It took awhile to realize the 7D needed a faster shutter speed than the 1D2 for action shooting. Not sure exactly why, higher pixel density?
artsupreme wrote:
No, I had 2N at 100 and 7D at 200 because it needs faster SS. If 2N at 200 then 7D at 400 and so on...the purpose here is to attempt to get "crisp" shots out of the 7D like the 2N delivers.
PetKal wrote:
Cam, yes, get that 1DMkIIN and sell 7D if you have to.
7D gives a fair bit more detail on a perfectly focused and lit/exposed shot with a sharp lens....in practice though, one doesn't achieve that 7d potential often.
7D is perhaps one to two stops better re ISO noise.
7D has a better user interface.
However, despite all that, 1DMkIIN is a better camera.
I agree completely.. I have both camera's and I never chose the 7D.. My wife likes it so I haven't sold it, yet..
mttran wrote:
Ananda, your 1d2n is heathy but we still don't know what causing the green banding in Cam's test. Inteferences/bad CF/light source cycle
Here is the update on the Camera. I sent the camera to Canon and they replaced it the shutter mechanism. However when I got the Camera, I was able to re-created the banding so I sent it back, this time they replaced the sensor and I have not been able to re-create the problem. The sensor replacement was done at no-charge as they didn't fix the problem that was initially reported the first time around.
Images now look very clean even at ISO 3200 - no banding.
So Cam, it was the camera and nothing on your end.
.