March 04, 2015, 10:38:32 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 - bholliman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58
1
Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 07:47:31 AM »
Yeah, I'm a father of 2 with a stay at home wife...anything over 1K is overpriced to me. If Sigma is producing excellent lenses, most of which are <1K, I would suspect Canon can compete. IF I was going to shell out the cash for the EF 16-35, I would expect a f/2.8. Who needs IS on a tripod shooting landscape??

I shoot a lot of landscape, both on and off a tripod.  For the non-tripod stuff, the 16-35/4's IS is fantastic!  Since I don't use this lens for astro photography, f/4 is fine.  I think Canon did a fantastic job with this lens and I'm happy with the price point.  It's not the prefect UWA zoom for everybody, but it is for many of us.

2
Lenses / Re: Lens suggestions for trip to Grand Canyon
« on: March 03, 2015, 06:50:59 PM »
With your 50D, I recommend renting the EF-S 10-22 or 10-18.  Both of these lenses are excellent.  Be prepared for some of the most beautiful scenery you have ever seen!

3
Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: March 01, 2015, 07:44:45 AM »
just an update for everyone in this thread. I have found my solution to my lens problem: more hours. I picked up more hours from my campus job. So far I have saved $450,  this is with out selling any gear yet. I am going to purchasing that sweet 16-35 f4. Its the lens I wanted and it will be my first L glass... it will be sweet!  I want to avoid the whole buy sell thing if I can. I will buy a 6d this summer. The 135 will be next for portraits And I'll keep my 50 for in between.

Sounds like a great plan!  The 16-35/4 IS is an excellent lens.

4
Reviews / Re: 7dII FOCUSING PROBLEMS WITH 300MM PRIME LENS
« on: February 28, 2015, 08:44:08 AM »


In all three following scenarios assume the same exposure information for both users.

So, two people standing next to each other both with brand new 300mm f2.8 IS MkII's, one with a 7D mkII the other with a 5D MkIII. They sit in a hide together and across a field there is a fence, a bird lands on the fence, the crop camera owner has tighter framing but still needs a small crop, the ff owner needs to crop much more to get the same framing but so what, it is a nice shot. Who has less dof? Neither, dof in both images is identical.

Same scenario but both guys decide their wider shot is actually a nice environmental shot that shows the birds habitat well and the light is just catching the fence nicely, obviously the ff camera shows more fov view but both images work well, so, same place, same lens, same aperture, different sized sensors and therefore different framing, who has less dof? The crop camera. Why? Not because it is a crop camera (or because he is using a mythical 480mm lens), but because the captured data is enlarged more, the bigger you make something the less sharp it is, dof is about apparent sharpness so the more you enlarge something the less dof it has.

Same scenario, the bird flies to a second fence much closer to the hide. The ff user can still use his 300 for a frame filling shot of the bird, the crop camera user has to swap out his 300 to a 70-200 to get the same framing, he zooms to about 190mm to get the same framing as the ff user and they both take the same framed shot from the same place with the same camera settings, just different focal length. Who has less dof? The ff user, at the same distance a 300mm at any aperture will give you less dof that a 190 at that same aperture, this difference will be greater than the difference between the enlargement amounts.

So depending on the specific scenario the dof of a crop camera can be shown to be the same as, or narrower, or deeper, than a ff camera.

Further, "compression" is a very bad way of expressing perspective. Compression is dependent on where you are in relation to your subject, nothing else, the lens does not create "compression". In the three scenarios above who has the most compression in each situation? Neither, they are both shot from the same place in relation to the subject so all the images have the same perspective. That means the "compression" is the same in all those above situations.

Excellent illustration!  I still struggle to understand these concepts at times, this helps.


5
Canon General / Re: Spartans, What is your profession?
« on: February 28, 2015, 04:57:50 AM »
Materials Director for an electronics manufacturing company and father of three.  Photography is one of my favorite hobbies and my main creative outlet.  There is never enough time for photography, but I work it in.  I travel a fair amount for my job which allows me to experience and photograph some locations I may not get to see otherwise.

6
Lenses / Re: Sigma 85mm vs. 70-200 II
« on: February 26, 2015, 11:03:20 PM »
i dunno about you but at f2 my sigma 85 is noticably sharper than either of my 70-200 mk2 are at f2.8
and in very low light the 1.4 is a god send

I've never used the Sigma 85, but my 70-200/2.8 II is extremely sharp, if the Sigma 85 is noticeably sharper, it must be really, really good.  The TDP crops show the 70-200 to be slightly sharper in the corners, but that is comparing 70mm and 100mm to 85mm, so not quite apples to apples.  Of course, your 70-200's and S85 are different copies so results will vary.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=756&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Lately I've been using my 85 more for environmental portraits.  Step back 20' and you have 1.4' of dof at f/1.4 so it's easy to get your subjects in focus.  From the distance, the foreground and backgrounds are not that blurry and you can make out what's in the background.  Its a very nice look the 70-200 can't match.

It took me some time to lean this lesson with fast primes.  When I purchased my first f/1.4 lens, I was often frustrated by the razor thin DOF but finally learned to back up unless I was going for that look. 

7
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/4L IS with EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: February 26, 2015, 10:53:33 PM »
I own both for use on my 6D and plan to keep both.  f/2 vs. f/4 is a huge difference.  I use the 16-35 for landscapes, buildings and kids playing outdoors.  I use the 35/2 indoors and outdoors as a general purpose lens.  I like the primes small size and weight.  I often take it paired with my 70-200, 100 macro or 135/2 as a versatile 2-lens combination.

8
Lenses / Re: I'm Torn Between...
« on: February 26, 2015, 10:45:16 PM »
Hello my fellow canon rumor members. I would like some feedback. I'm torn between the Canon 16-35 f4 and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. I shoot with a 7d mark ii and the focal lengths I like to use most are 16, 24, 35 and 50. Both lenses have IS and I'll be using which ever lens I get for both photo and video. I'll also be using the lens for general photos and street photography. Can you guys please help me make a choice?! I do plan on going full frame, probably when the 5d Mark 4 come out, so efs lenses are not an option.

Once you get a full format camera, you will probably want both a standard zoom like the 24-70/2.8 and a UWA zoom like the 16-35/4.  Of the 4 focal lengths you prefer, both lenses cover 3 of the 4.  The answer to your question might be if you if you live without 16mm or 50mm easier.  If it was me I'd choose the 16-35, but the 24-70 has a lot going for it as well.

9
Lenses / Re: which telephoto for travel?
« on: February 26, 2015, 10:17:05 PM »
Jd7,
I was in very similar shoes not long back when I realized I was missing a tele lens simply because I couldn't carry my 70-200/2.8 everywhere. I decided to go for the 135L, not sure if it would be the right solution (I was also considering the 70-300L and 70-400L). However, I can happily say that I have not looked back.
It is one of my most often used lens nowadays (other than my 24-70) and I try to shoehorn it into every job- I like it so much! It is great for portraits, indoor sports, events, shows, zoos, just to name a few of my recent uses.
So yeah, I would wholeheartedly recommend it. Your only limitation will be sticking to speeds above 1/160, but if you are shooting anything moving you'd have to do that anyway. And the high ISO capabilities of the 6D will help you out here.
(BTW, I have access to only the 35L and the 135L at the moment, and I just love the combo on my 6D).

Hi SR

Interesting to hear how much you like your 135L, and the places you're using it.  Have you had many occasions when you had the 135L with you but wished you'd brought your 70-200?  Is it just the smaller size and lighter weight of the 135L which you are liking, or is it more than that?  The thing I'm trying to decide is how much I would miss the convenience of the zoom in travel situations.  I do spend a fair bit of time wandering around with my 35 and 85 though, so maybe I'd be fine with the 135 (and I'd enjoy the f/2 aperture).

thanks!

I own both a 70-200/2.8 II and a 135/2 and both have a permanent place in my kit.  When I want to travel light, I often take my 24-70/2.8 II and 135/2 as a very effective two lens combo. 

For me the 135/2's advantages are size/weight, f/2 aperture and being pretty inconspicuous due to its size and color.  The extra stop of light gathering ability is huge.  The 135/2 is a terrific indoor sports lens that allows lower ISO's and cleaner, better quality pictures.  Sure, you give up the flexibility of the zoom, but when not reach limited it does a great job.

10
PowerShot / Re: Advice for non-compact versatile camera plz
« on: February 26, 2015, 09:46:32 PM »
Another vote for the SL1.  A fun camera to carry around and gives you all the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.  And the price - especially for refurbished - is a deal hard to pass up!  (I should know - I bought one refurbished a few months ago)!

Of course, if possible, I would take her to a camera store and try out a few cameras and see what she likes.  That answer will be far more important than what we recommend.

+1  Refurbished SL1's are a terrific value, a very capable little camera for less than the much more limited SX60. 

As dak723 suggested, she should go to a camera store and try out a variety of cameras see how the various options handle and if the size and controls are what she is looking for.  If the SL1 is too small, a used Rebel T3i, T4i or T5i (600D-700D) have roughly the same sensor and image quality in a somewhat larger body. 

The SX60's sensor is a relatively tiny 6.17x4.55mm, just a little larger than a smart phone sensor.  The SL1 and the Rebel's listed above have a sensor that is over 10x larger by area (22.30x14.90mm) that will produce much higher quality images and enable greater artistic creativity with ability to control depth of field and shoot effectively in low light.  The manual controls on these cameras will be a great learning tool for a young, learning photographer.  The ability to change lenses will allow her to buy or borrow a wide variety of excellent Canon lenses to open up new doors artistic expression.  Sure the SX60 has a huge zoom range, but that might be its only real advantage over a Rebel DSLR.

Here is a link that discusses digital camera sensor sizes and a comparative chart for reference.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format


Here is another link to compare camera sizes.  Note the SL1 body is pretty similar in size to the SX60.  With a 18-55 STM lens attached, the SL1 is over an inch deeper, but with the new EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM lens, the SL1 is smaller and lighter. 

http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,448.377,448.439,449.377,ha,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,448.377,448.439,449.377,ha,f

11
Lenses / Re: supply of 16-35 f4 is and decision on WA for travel
« on: February 24, 2015, 07:15:23 PM »
Obvious the zoom would be more practical for the trip, but I would probably get more use out of the prime the rest of the year.


If you are looking at using the 16-35/4 IS primarily on this trip, why not rent it and buy the 24/1.4 later?

12
Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 23, 2015, 02:47:13 PM »
Here is my process of photo selection:

1. In camera - If doing limited shooting, I do a quick review on the camera LCD and delete obvious oof and mistake shots.  This is just a quick review, only really obvuously bad shots are deleted.

2.  I import all the RAW and JPG shots off the memory card after a shoot of when I have accumulated a few weeks of shots from periods of light shooting, to a temporary folder on my PC.

3.  I then review the JPG's and delete OOF shots (checking at 100 or 150% on the JPG), eyes closed and other poor shots.  I then delete the cooresponding RAW file.  The JPG's are deleted after this step unless they are in-camera HDR or JPG only (both very rarely used).

4. I use a batch renaming program to rename all the files to my standard format.

5.  Open LR5 and import the RAW files.  After importing, I do one more review when I assign star ratings and delete some additional pictures.

As others have said, my keeper rate depends on what Im shooting.  I tend to delete a lot of decent/sharp pictures that others might retain.  Maybe 1/3 of my pictures survive the process above for most shooting.  When I shoot in AI Servo (pretty rare) maybe 1/10 survive since I dont like to keep lots of redundant pictures of the same subject/event, even if they are sharp, well composed and technically OK.

Only maybe 1/1000 of pictures shot get a 5 star rating and only maybe 1/350 or so get 4 stars.


13
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 6D Body $1199
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:48:18 PM »


Agreed on all that. I love mine, too. The price will likely go lower. You can buy a Sony A7 for under USD1000 these days. And that's a better camera in many respects.

The 6D is great. But its AF system is complete garbage with the exception of the center focus point, which is great. AF Servo tracking really blows...

And the 6D is a better camera than the A7 in other respects. 

Funny you mention autofocus, not a strong suit for the Sony A7's  either.  I started photography with rangefinder film cameras in the early 90's.  Photographers really have it good these days - even today's low end AF systems are a luxury we could only dream about 20 years ago.

I paid $2,100 for my 6D in December of 2012 and its been worth every penny. The current deals for 6D's and 5D3's are tremendous values.  I'm considering picking up one of these as a second body.



14
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 19, 2015, 06:10:37 AM »
I was going to recommend the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, but it sounds like you are happy with your Nikkor 50 with an adapter. 

Given that you are shooting indoors with controlled lighting, I think the 85/1.8 makes sense.  It will give you tighter framing for head and head/shoulder shots and it excellent optically.  In then environment you are shooting in the problems with this lens (high CA in some situations) will not be an issue.

15
Canon General / Re: Lost half of my Canon DSLR
« on: February 17, 2015, 05:23:04 PM »
Sorry for your loss Dylan.  Good luck with insurance!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58