September 17, 2014, 12:07:01 PM

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 - MagnumJoe

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:46:18 PM »
Any mention of whether the metering will be linked to the AF point? That would be icing on the cake for me, but see no mention of it.

I would suspect no, sadly.

Wish my 5d3 had this. I almost always shoot in manual mode because of inaccurate metering in many situations. This feature might make me lazy (and happy).  :)

For a few thousand dollars more, you can be lazy and happy.  Just buy a 1D X.   ;)

neuro, made me laugh. Do I need a 1DX no, do want one yes; 3K saved only 3K more to go to get a refurb.  :)

2
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:19:31 PM »
The 5D MK III had so much more detail and much sharper than the 70D.

Should not come as a surprise. Even low quality lenses like the 17-40 shine on the 5D3/6D but appear very bad when mounted on APS-C cameras. It's just a matter of pixel density.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Woody, I agree with you, I should have known.  Here are the photos I was referring to.


The top photo is focussed in front of the seated people. Look at the grass out front. I'd say it's front focussed by a couple of feet, leaving the subjects a little out of focus in behind

It looks like this to me as well.  The lens looks like it got front focused here.  The grass out in front looks pretty detailed.

Etienne, Chris Charles, StudentOfLight,
I went back and looked at the images closer and I found the differences.  When I shot with the 70D the AF point was set to center focus; where as the 5D MK III was set to AF point expansion/surround.

With that said, it still appears to me when looking at the original images posted earlier (yesterday) and looking Benro mono pod it still looks sharper with the 5D MK III. Thanks guys.



3
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 11:15:07 PM »
The 5D MK III had so much more detail and much sharper than the 70D.

Should not come as a surprise. Even low quality lenses like the 17-40 shine on the 5D3/6D but appear very bad when mounted on APS-C cameras. It's just a matter of pixel density.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?

Lens=687&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Woody, I agree with you, I should have known.  Here are the photos I was referring to.


The top photo is focussed in front of the seated people. Look at the grass out front. I'd say it's front focussed by a couple of feet, leaving the subjects a little out of focus in behind

Hi Etienne,  I respect your attention to detail, but that is just not the case, I simply changed cameras and focused on my daughter and cropped it.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 10:32:59 PM »
The 5D MK III had so much more detail and much sharper than the 70D.

Should not come as a surprise. Even low quality lenses like the 17-40 shine on the 5D3/6D but appear very bad when mounted on APS-C cameras. It's just a matter of pixel density.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Woody, I agree with you, I should have known.  Here are the photos I was referring to.


5
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 08:48:27 PM »
Just small incremental upgrades.  Not much to show for all the years of development if you ask me.  I'll skip the mark II, thank you.

Since I skipped the 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D and 7D, this looks like a huge upgrade to me over the 20D I shot with (very successfully) all day today.

I'm shooting with a 60D and it looks like a huge upgrade :)

My biggest question is, should I get a 70D or a 7DII?  Some advantages for each.  I'll wait for the announcement and first tests on the sensor of the 7DII before I make a decision.

Interestingly, I was considering between 70D & 6D versus 7DII & 5DIII.  I like my 20D and 5D because they basically have the same user interface.  But, for what I use it for, the 6D would actually probably be better than the 5DIII (WiFi would help at times, GPS would certainly help to keep the clock accurate, the low-light focusing point is probably more useful for me than the 5DIII's advanced super-fast focusing).  So my wife basically told me to suck it up and get the 7DII and 6D, and just learn to handle the UI differences.  Still thinking about that, but she probably has a point.


I was thinking of the same. I sold my 6D and purchased a 5D MK III and absolutely love it.  I want a second camera, I rented a 70D a few weeks ago and truly enjoyed using it during my grandson's soccer game. I like shooting wide open using a 70-200mm f/2.8 the 70D worked well and I was happy at first, but I took a quick shot with the 70D removed the lens and put it on my 5D MK III took the same shot. When I go home, I compared the two shots and of course I had to crop the 5D MK III. The 5D MK III had so much more detail and much sharper than the 70D.  I really liked the video touch screen and auto focus on the 70D, but wonder how often would I really use video. This past Thursday my grandson had another U6 soccer game, and used my 5D MK III since I returned the 70D and glad I did., because it rained as they continued to play I was able to continue to shooting.  So the 70D isn't an option any longer with only 1 fps better than the 5D MK III. I had big hopes for the 7D MK II mainly for the extra reach, fps and weather proof and it still may not be out of contention for a second camera. Here is a shot with the 5D MK III on Thursdays game.  Suggestions are appreciated.

6
Lenses / Re: Soccer and Football IS Mode on 300L
« on: August 03, 2014, 09:29:51 PM »
Turn IS off for sports or your pictures could be soft due to the IS not being settled while you move the lens and press the shutter.
Then, keep your shutter speed high to freeze motion.
Unless you are trying to do something fancy like use a slow shutter speed and pan with the subject then use IS mode 2. In general turn IS off for erratically moving subjects.

I have a 70-200 f/2.8 II and shot with a 5d mk iii which I know it'a a bit short for soccer and football, but would you suggest the same in my case?

7
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm F/2
« on: August 19, 2013, 09:14:30 PM »
Thanks everyone, I'm going to rent it have it here by Friday.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm F/2
« on: August 18, 2013, 08:19:46 PM »
Only you can decide if the price difference is worth it. But the 85 on crop is like 135/2.8 on FF (in terms of DOF, noise and FOV) with much worse sharpness/CA/PF wide open:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=106&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Those crops do not say it all: the 135L has excellent bokeh.

Wow!!! The results from the link above tells it all.  Thank you.


On the other hand, the 85 should perform quite well on your 6D. Some find 135mm a bit too long.

9
Lenses / Canon 135mm F/2
« on: August 18, 2013, 06:11:51 PM »
Question about the Canon 135mm f/2.0/L. I have a T3i as well as a 6D, my favorite lens today is the Canon 85mm f/1.8. Would I gain any thing buying the Canon 135mm for my 6D, vs using my 85mm on my T3i or would it be a waste of money?

10
Lenses / Need Help with a 24-70 lens
« on: August 12, 2013, 09:42:39 PM »
I'm thinking of selling my Canon 24-105 f/4 with IS lens.  The two lenses I'm thinking of replacing it with are the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mark I or the Tamron f/2.8 24-70 with VC. Has anyone used and/or compared both of these lenses?  I would like to hear of your experience if you have as well as your thoughts, inputs and recommendations. I would use this lens as my walk around lens, indoor functions, sunrises and sunsets on beach and video. As much as I'd like to have the Canon 24-70 MK II, it's a bit out of my budget.  For portraits I'm truly enjoying my 85mm f/1.8.

11
Lenses / Re: Help with a potriat lens
« on: August 10, 2013, 11:22:52 PM »
I currently have a 6D and 24-105mm lens.  I want a portrait lens to take photos of my grand children.  I'm thinking of these 2 lenses.  Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS.  The reviews I've read point that both are great lenses, but the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS is slightly better, but the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS is more versatile.  I don't have the cash for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. 
I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS coming this week that I rented, so I'll have a chance to try it out. I just wanted your opinion on the better portrait lens.

I've attached a couple of pictures shoot with the 24-105.

As much as I like the picture on my original post, it was about 3pm on bright sunny day. This photo I shot with the 85mm @ 1.8 on a cloudy day with flash is nothing at all to brag about.  It's just a sharper photo, even though the composition is poor.

12
Lenses / Re: Help with a potriat lens
« on: August 10, 2013, 10:56:20 PM »
If you also want to shoot macro, the 100L makes sense. For around the cost of the 70-200/4L IS, you could get the 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L.  That's like a portrait 1-2 punch.  An f/4 lens on FF is ok if you've got plenty of physical separation between subject and background, or in a studio with strobes and a backdrop (where I use f/9 or so).  But for 'candid' portraits, a faster aperture is preferable.

I wanted to report back and thank you for your suggestion.  I bought the 85mm and rented the f4 70-200. Since I ordered the 85mm f/1.8 from Amazon I knew I could send it back if the f/4 70-200 rocked my world for portraits.  It was cloudy here today in the Florida Panhandle after showers from 2-6pm.  But I had to chance to use both the 85mm and the 70-200.  Your advice "for me"  was spot on, thank you.

13
Lenses / Re: Help with a potriat lens
« on: August 07, 2013, 09:59:48 PM »
If you also want to shoot macro, the 100L makes sense. For around the cost of the 70-200/4L IS, you could get the 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L.  That's like a portrait 1-2 punch.  An f/4 lens on FF is ok if you've got plenty of physical separation between subject and background, or in a studio with strobes and a backdrop (where I use f/9 or so).  But for 'candid' portraits, a faster aperture is preferable.

Thank everyone, I took Mr. Neuroanatomist advice.  I bought the 85mm 1.8 today and probably will buy the 135mm f/2L next.  My plan is this, using the 85mm on my 6D and if I need more range I can put the 85mm on my T3i for now.

14
Lenses / Help with a potriat lens
« on: August 06, 2013, 10:43:26 PM »
I currently have a 6D and 24-105mm lens.  I want a portrait lens to take photos of my grand children.  I'm thinking of these 2 lenses.  Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS.  The reviews I've read point that both are great lenses, but the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS is slightly better, but the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS is more versatile.  I don't have the cash for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. 
I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS coming this week that I rented, so I'll have a chance to try it out. I just wanted your opinion on the better portrait lens.

I've attached a couple of pictures shoot with the 24-105.

 

15
If you mean the 2.8 IS II, get that. If you mean the MkI, get the f/4 IS and the 85/1.8 instead.

Thank you, I was referring to the 2.8 IS II, sorry for not being clear.

Pages: [1] 2 3