This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20097d for weddings?
p.5 #17d for weddings?
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Just saw the Canadian pricing .. $2,100. Nutz.
Ebay - the great equalizer.
Just saw the Canadian pricing .. $2,100. Nutz.
Ebay - the great equalizer.
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:37 PM
p.5 #27d for weddings?
The real question on the 7D, does it work with Green to White technology?
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:39 PM
p.5 #37d for weddings?
I'm pumped about all the feature awesomeness, FF or not, and will be picking one up fo myself =) . . . especially since I won't be shooting weddings for the next year and a half!
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:56 PM
p.5 #47d for weddings?
Sahid Limon wrote:
shoots in Jpeg, Raw, sRaw, and the new bRAW mode
bRAW mode. Hilarious.
shoots in Jpeg, Raw, sRaw, and the new bRAW mode
bRAW mode. Hilarious.
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:18 PM
p.5 #57d for weddings?
tmiller wrote:
My Mark III will continue to deliver one of a kind images, and better autofocus than most other cameras on the market.
-Tim
Red Vine Studios
Http://redvinestudios.com
So let me know when you're selling your Mark III, cuz I want to instantly take your style!!!!
My Mark III will continue to deliver one of a kind images, and better autofocus than most other cameras on the market.
-Tim
Red Vine Studios
Http://redvinestudios.com
So let me know when you're selling your Mark III, cuz I want to instantly take your style!!!!
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:29 PM
p.5 #67d for weddings?
Scott Mosher wrote:
-Tim
Red Vine Studios
Http://redvinestudios.comSo let me know when you're selling your Mark III, cuz I want to instantly take your style!!!!
If you would like my style.... I'm available at competitive rates listed on my site. =oP
Seriously... it's not the cam, but the man.... and thanks for the compliment, I think. =o)
-Tim
Red Vine Studios
http://redvinestudios.com
tmiller wrote
My Mark III will continue to deliver one of a kind images, and better autofocus than most other cameras on the market.-Tim
Red Vine Studios
Http://redvinestudios.com
If you would like my style.... I'm available at competitive rates listed on my site. =oP
Seriously... it's not the cam, but the man.... and thanks for the compliment, I think. =o)
-Tim
Red Vine Studios
http://redvinestudios.com
Sep 01, 2009 at 11:27 PM
p.5 #77d for weddings?
That's funny.
Sahid Limon wrote:
OH snapz. 5D mk2 vs 7D thread emerging right here.
You guys are all lame. Everyone knows that the ultimate camera for weddings is the upcoming 8D. I just heard the specs from someone who works at Canon:
35 MP FF sensor
15 fps
ISO range from 5 - 512,000
full weather sealing
Works with all Ef-s lenses
4' LCD screen with 920,000 dpi
full 1080p video
built in light meter
shoots in Jpeg, Raw, sRaw, and the new bRAW mode
Built in Image stabilizing button
Flare button to instantly add flare to your shots
a new hooking system to hang your Fongsphere when not being used
46 Custom functions, including...Show more →
Sahid Limon wrote:
OH snapz. 5D mk2 vs 7D thread emerging right here.
You guys are all lame. Everyone knows that the ultimate camera for weddings is the upcoming 8D. I just heard the specs from someone who works at Canon:
35 MP FF sensor
15 fps
ISO range from 5 - 512,000
full weather sealing
Works with all Ef-s lenses
4' LCD screen with 920,000 dpi
full 1080p video
built in light meter
shoots in Jpeg, Raw, sRaw, and the new bRAW mode
Built in Image stabilizing button
Flare button to instantly add flare to your shots
a new hooking system to hang your Fongsphere when not being used
46 Custom functions, including...Show more →
Sep 02, 2009 at 12:48 AM
p.5 #87d for weddings?
lisy78 wrote:
If the photos from Rob Galbraith's site are real and a realistic representation of what you can expect from the 7d then wait for it... it's coming... I'll make it bold for you guys:
THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high...Show more →
Has Brainiac see this?
If the photos from Rob Galbraith's site are real and a realistic representation of what you can expect from the 7d then wait for it... it's coming... I'll make it bold for you guys:
THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high...Show more →
Has Brainiac see this?
Sep 02, 2009 at 10:29 AM
p.5 #97d for weddings?
scott f wrote:
One think I think will happen with the 7D is that you won't be using teleconverters much. I can see a difference with a 40D on a 500f4 and 1.4x, and at 18megapixels on the 7D, it's really got to show.
If you'll stand a little closer to the bride and groom, it'll be much easier on your wallet!
One think I think will happen with the 7D is that you won't be using teleconverters much. I can see a difference with a 40D on a 500f4 and 1.4x, and at 18megapixels on the 7D, it's really got to show.
If you'll stand a little closer to the bride and groom, it'll be much easier on your wallet!
Sep 02, 2009 at 11:23 AM
p.5 #107d for weddings?
The guide to Canon dSLR Bodies.
XXXD or Rebel (any) = good images, cheap-as-possible body
XXD (any) = good images, basic body
5D (any mark) = best images, basic body
7D = good images, good body
1D (any mark) = great images, awesome body
1Ds (any mark) = best images, awesome body
XXXD or Rebel (any) = good images, cheap-as-possible body
XXD (any) = good images, basic body
5D (any mark) = best images, basic body
7D = good images, good body
1D (any mark) = great images, awesome body
1Ds (any mark) = best images, awesome body
Sep 02, 2009 at 05:28 PM
p.5 #127d for weddings?
Sam Hassas wrote:
Crop sensor = do not want.
Crop sensor = crap! I agree...
Crop sensor = do not want.
Crop sensor = crap! I agree...
Sep 02, 2009 at 08:41 PM
p.5 #137d for weddings?
joezasada wrote:
The guide to Canon dSLR Bodies.
XXXD or Rebel (any) = good images, cheap-as-possible body
XXD (any) = good images, basic body
5D (any mark) = best images, basic body
7D = good images, good body
1D (any mark) = great images, awesome body
1Ds (any mark) = best images, awesome body
Can you please re-relate as a guide to 'women' please.
The guide to Canon dSLR Bodies.
XXXD or Rebel (any) = good images, cheap-as-possible body
XXD (any) = good images, basic body
5D (any mark) = best images, basic body
7D = good images, good body
1D (any mark) = great images, awesome body
1Ds (any mark) = best images, awesome body
Can you please re-relate as a guide to 'women' please.
Sep 02, 2009 at 10:59 PM
p.5 #147d for weddings?
sidewa
388 wrote:
can someone explain why you guys choose full frame over crop?
actually the better reply would be we cant get good wide
angle lens for the 1.6x body.
ie 24f1.4 simply dont have a replacement with the 1.6x body.
There is no EF-S lens that replicate the 24mm view AND have f1.4.
Canon, are you hearing this ?
so we are all ( mostly ) back to 5Dmk2
although we are ALL very excited about the features of 7D
388 wrote:can someone explain why you guys choose full frame over crop?
actually the better reply would be we cant get good wide
angle lens for the 1.6x body.
ie 24f1.4 simply dont have a replacement with the 1.6x body.
There is no EF-S lens that replicate the 24mm view AND have f1.4.
Canon, are you hearing this ?
so we are all ( mostly ) back to 5Dmk2
although we are ALL very excited about the features of 7D
Sep 03, 2009 at 02:53 AM
p.5 #157d for weddings?
Beauchamp wrote:
I think Canon will almost certainly release an FF camera with these features now. It may be several months or another year, but the 5DIII or 3D, or whatever you want to call it, will be on its way.
That will be a wedding photographer's camera.
Hear Hear
That's exactly what I was thinking
But maybe its rather soon....as soon as those tester ( new 7D owner ) can
verify the AF accuracy in real life test.
They are not going to make the same blunder as 1Dmk3. ( no more testing AF on flag ship cameras )
I think Canon will almost certainly release an FF camera with these features now. It may be several months or another year, but the 5DIII or 3D, or whatever you want to call it, will be on its way.
That will be a wedding photographer's camera.
Hear Hear
That's exactly what I was thinking
But maybe its rather soon....as soon as those tester ( new 7D owner ) can
verify the AF accuracy in real life test.
They are not going to make the same blunder as 1Dmk3. ( no more testing AF on flag ship cameras )
Sep 03, 2009 at 03:00 AM
p.5 #177d for weddings?
Lisy, thanks for the demo. The grain looks really nice, D700ish which I love.
When paired with a 17-55 2.8IS, could be a lethal combination.
When paired with a 17-55 2.8IS, could be a lethal combination.
Sep 03, 2009 at 11:53 AM
p.5 #187d for weddings?
lisy78 wrote:
What causes the unworkability of high ISO images is primarily that ABOMINATION OF BANDING that has plagued pretty much every Canon DSLR I can think of. .
There is none of this in the 1D MkIII. That was the first Canon dslr I've used that I can easily push 2-4 stops at almost any ISO and not get any banding at all. And it beats the 7D by about 1 stop out of camera at high ISO's comparing real world tests (the MkIII is 2 or more stops better using the MkIII Flex action).
I used the Drebel, 20D, 1D MkII and 1D MkIIN and they all showed pattern noise when pushed, especially at high ISO's. None of this at all on the 1D MkIII.
What causes the unworkability of high ISO images is primarily that ABOMINATION OF BANDING that has plagued pretty much every Canon DSLR I can think of. .
There is none of this in the 1D MkIII. That was the first Canon dslr I've used that I can easily push 2-4 stops at almost any ISO and not get any banding at all. And it beats the 7D by about 1 stop out of camera at high ISO's comparing real world tests (the MkIII is 2 or more stops better using the MkIII Flex action).
I used the Drebel, 20D, 1D MkII and 1D MkIIN and they all showed pattern noise when pushed, especially at high ISO's. None of this at all on the 1D MkIII.
Oct 09, 2009 at 07:35 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.5 #197d for weddings?
michael49 wrote:
THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high ISO images is primarily that ABOMINATION OF BANDING that has plagued pretty much every Canon DSLR I can think of. Detail is great, and more detail is greater still... but nothing ruins a pushed 6400 shot like noticeable pattern noise.
Look at the 7D files. Compared to the 5DII the noise is SIGNIFICANTLY more pattern-less ... in fact I don't see a pattern at all in the full size files, these shrunk down copies are showing a minor amount of pattern probably due to the sampling that went on when I shrunk them. The 5DII files' channels are a MESS both in their full size and in this shrunk down example.
Oh and by the way... the channels view is only to really show you what's going on... if you're not blind and your monitor doesn't suxxers you should see the banding in the 5D2 shot in the RGB composite (which is what we're obviously concerned about)
It's great news if you think about it. Whatever they did they will do to the 5DIII and then we'll have better detail AND NO PATTERN NOISE!!!
*REAL WORLD = when a real human being who is taking a real photo in terrible lighting conditions uses a High ISO setting to cope with the lack of light and often ends up having to then even PUSH the results. Not when someone takes an ISO 6400 shot in broad daylight 'cause they want to use F45... in that case I wouldn't be surprised if the 5D2 does better.Has Brainiac see this?
Yes. I agree that the 7D looks better than the 5D2 in terms of banding. I was expecting this because I first noticed that this problem had been solved in the 500D. 5D2 still has the advantage of workable manual focus and full-frame viewfinder, and of course it will often record more detail because it doesn't put such pressure on the lens. But basically I agree that the 5D2 IQ performance isn't head and shoulders above the 7D and there will be times when the 7D may do better. Can't wait for a 5D3/D3 with the banding fix, as long as it allows for a manual focus screen but I can see that Canon will once again find a way to provide a great new camera with fundamental flaws. Imagine. 3D with 7fps, small body, full-frame, best high iso ever, 30 Mpixels, and no way to focus manually at f1.4. That will be time to switch ;-)
lisy78 wrote
If the photos from Rob Galbraith's site are real and a realistic representation of what you can expect from the 7d then wait for it... it's coming... I'll make it bold for you guys:THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high ISO images is primarily that ABOMINATION OF BANDING that has plagued pretty much every Canon DSLR I can think of. Detail is great, and more detail is greater still... but nothing ruins a pushed 6400 shot like noticeable pattern noise.
Look at the 7D files. Compared to the 5DII the noise is SIGNIFICANTLY more pattern-less ... in fact I don't see a pattern at all in the full size files, these shrunk down copies are showing a minor amount of pattern probably due to the sampling that went on when I shrunk them. The 5DII files' channels are a MESS both in their full size and in this shrunk down example.
Oh and by the way... the channels view is only to really show you what's going on... if you're not blind and your monitor doesn't suxxers you should see the banding in the 5D2 shot in the RGB composite (which is what we're obviously concerned about)
It's great news if you think about it. Whatever they did they will do to the 5DIII and then we'll have better detail AND NO PATTERN NOISE!!!
*REAL WORLD = when a real human being who is taking a real photo in terrible lighting conditions uses a High ISO setting to cope with the lack of light and often ends up having to then even PUSH the results. Not when someone takes an ISO 6400 shot in broad daylight 'cause they want to use F45... in that case I wouldn't be surprised if the 5D2 does better.
Yes. I agree that the 7D looks better than the 5D2 in terms of banding. I was expecting this because I first noticed that this problem had been solved in the 500D. 5D2 still has the advantage of workable manual focus and full-frame viewfinder, and of course it will often record more detail because it doesn't put such pressure on the lens. But basically I agree that the 5D2 IQ performance isn't head and shoulders above the 7D and there will be times when the 7D may do better. Can't wait for a 5D3/D3 with the banding fix, as long as it allows for a manual focus screen but I can see that Canon will once again find a way to provide a great new camera with fundamental flaws. Imagine. 3D with 7fps, small body, full-frame, best high iso ever, 30 Mpixels, and no way to focus manually at f1.4. That will be time to switch ;-)
Oct 10, 2009 at 05:29 AM
p.5 #207d for weddings?
I had a 40D crap out mid ceremony a week ago. So, I ran downtown and managed to get my hands on a 7D. This particular body had no ability to achieve sharp focus without manually focusing. I took both bodies down to Canon in New Jersey. They resurrected the 40D and made the 7D able to focus better. But!-- it's still front focusing so I'm going to have to return it.
For now, back to my 5dii and 40D.
For now, back to my 5dii and 40D.
Oct 10, 2009 at 06:20 AM