September 17, 2014, 11:43:16 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 - Ruined

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43
Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: Today at 09:58:51 AM »
I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).

Well, idea is, if you have a bottomless pit of money with full frame you can just buy a longer lens and get better results than crop with a shorter lens.  But, the OP has a 100-400 and shoots wildlife; the FOV at 400mm on his current camera is ~640mm.  In order to get that on full frame he'd have to spend $10k on a Canon EF 600mm f/4L or start putting on teleconverters which will negatively impact the image quality (and often autofocus) more than a crop camera will.

So yeah crop is cheaper, but its not just the camera but more importantly the lens when you get to longer focal lengths.

As for cropping full frame to APS-C, when you are reach limited there will be more pixels on the target with crop.  Cropping full frame will work but you will lose detail because of this.  The exception to this rule would be when shooting in low light (i.e. ISO6400) when the lower noise & higher contrast of full frame would likely be a better tradeoff for a little less detail.  Some feel that cropping full frame is at worst no difference but that is not my experience at lower ISOs and it does not logically make sense to me knowing how digital imaging works.

jrista did a fairly well controlled test here that can demonstrate the loss of detail when cropping full frame vs using a crop camera on a reach limited target for a visual demonstration; you can see in his test the full frame crop loses a ton of detail on the moon surface/craters because there just aren't enough pixels to fully reproduce it on full frame due to the cropping:

Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: Today at 02:44:15 AM »
Ruined: You are a smart person. I like smart people.  Thanks for coming to the forum :) I am going to go out and do a photoshoot at 250 and see if I can tolerate it... This might be a diccy (& fight provoking) question, but, how much could you 'crop' a full frame image to say it is the 'same' quality as a crop. Rather than 250, could it maybe closer to 300/320?  oh god my brain hurts and I'm not even trying to work out the answer.  I guess there are probably many variables...

There have been quite a few tests done on this, even here at CR.

To sum it up, if you have good light (i.e. ISO 1600, maybe 3200 if the 7DII improves over the 7D - which initial tests seem to indicate) and you are reach limited (meaning that in this case, you are taking a picture that does not fill up the whole frame of a crop camera when using your longest lens), then generally crop will win.  If ISO is higher (3200-6400+) full frame will probably win with cropping, but do remember if you are at 300+mm with your 100-400 frequently you probably want to stick with the crop.  Otherwise, its going to be a real pain in post to crop every shot, and cropping aside the subject may be too small in the viewfinder to take the type of photos you want; I see a lot of emotion in your wildlife photos, that may going to be hard to capture if it is too small to see due to lack of reach when taking the photo!  If you have Lightroom (and some other programs), you can set a filter to see what focal length your entire library of photos is at; see what percentage of your photos are greater than 250mm focal length to get an idea how many you'd need to crop on full frame to get the same picture.  You can do the same with ISO to see how many you need ISO higher than 1600-3200.

Full frame is quite excellent, but crop has its applications too.  That is why they make a pro crop camera, and the 7D line is known to be popular with wildlife photographers due to the extra reach. Full frame has an allure too, for my portrait work I would never give up full frame.  But full frame is not a panacea that conquers all, it is simply another option that mostly offers significant improvements, but does have some notable drawbacks as well for the type of photography you shoot based on your website photos - reach being the largest.

IMO in your case there really is no definitive answer.  If you want only one body, you will have to pick between reach and high ISO!  So, you should check the usual focal lengths you shoot too see what percentage >250mm, what percentage >3200 ISO - then do some shoots capped at 250mm on your current camera to see if the reach is sufficient.  If photo analysis and your tests indicate 250mm on your current camera will be enough for 95%+ of your photos, then definitely go for the 5D3.  If you exceed 250mm frequently and need the reach, I would think twice about buying a full frame camera due to all the cropping that will be needed - plus a good deal of the benefit of full frame (not all) is lost when you crop lots of the frame away every picture.

In short, do your research on your own photos/photography to see which solution is best for you.  Don't buy full frame just to buy full frame, as you may be disappointed if you want/need the reach of crop.

Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:15:43 PM »
Wow thanks guys, loving the support...

I totally get what you are saying Ruined and you make So much sense. I just can't seem to get my head around having two bodies... I would always have decisions every time I do anything (I don't like so many decisions).  I was going to keep my 600D as my back up (in case it broke - not as a carry along).  I know pros take 2 bodies, but i'm trying to minimise my gear, not increase it on travels. If all I did was out of a car/house then you make more sense, but travelling/backpacking at times, its a bit too heavy. 

I can understand, if you are dead set on only one body then 7DII vs 5DIII would depend whether reach/framing or high ISO is more important; I would not get the 6D alone as it will likely leave you wanting more for fast moving wildlife.  Note though, you don't necessarily have to take two bodies every time you go out, you can take the one that simply makes most sense for what you are primarily taking that day.  As a warning though I realize its just a backup, once you handle any of these three cameras (5D3, 7DII, 6D) you may have a rough time going back to the 600D as the handling and features of those three will have spoiled you!

I am sure you probably know this, but if you want to somewhat simulate the reach & framing of the 5DIII with your 100-400mm, put it on your existing camera and zoom all the way to 400mm - that will be the 7DII FOV max reach.  Now zoom out back to 250mm - that will be 5D3 FOV max reach.  If you are okay with the reach you see at 250mm then I'd get the 5DIII.  If you'd really prefer the greater reach and sacrifice some ISO to do so, then get the 7DII.   If you really want to be comprehensive, go out on a few simulated photoshoots and force yourself to be limited to 250mm max on your current camera to see if it really will work for you or whether you will be stuck in post cropping all day.

I do events and I can't wait to get the 7DII because the reach can be key for certain types of events like racing (since I don't want to buy or lug around a 10k 8.5lb lens :)) and other events when getting close is not practical.  it also opens up alternative FOVs for primes.  But, there is also no doubt in my mind that my FF camera will handily beat it at ISO 3200+.

Lenses / Re: Canon Reveals Details for future Telephoto Lens Line
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:05:31 PM »
Nice!  Sounds like there will be a 70-300 DO II.  That would be awesome given the improvements discussed.

Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:03:25 PM »
135L II
85L III redesign, similar to the 50 1.0 > 1.2 redesign

Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:02:25 PM »
pic looks fake to me, there is all sorts of suspicious mosquito noise on the text around the hood.

Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: September 16, 2014, 01:31:15 AM »
Based on your photos you have a pretty wide range of stuff you take.

Camera body:
Buy both 7DII & 6D for ~$3000 (get refurb 6D from Canon store)
-Take 7DII when you need reach, framerate, and/or 1DX-quality autofocus - birds, wildlife, etc
-Take 6D when you need ISO 6400, do landscape, or want thinnest DOF for your shot

You have a heavy wildlife focus so I think having a "pro" APS-C camera is a good idea for reach (and macro) & the best autofocus, but in those scenarios where you need high ISO or want thin DOF you can use the 6D which will do a much better job than the 7DII in those areas.  5DIII would be spending a lot of money for a camera that will not have the FOV/reach you would probably like for your large amount of wildlife shots; you will probably find yourself being forced to excessively crop in post.  But if you get this 7DII+6D combo, you can bring the appropriate camera (or both) and use whichever makes sense for what you are shooting at the time. 

Want crazy reach?  You got it, 7DII.  Want high ISO?  You got it, 6D.  You can't have both crazy reach + high ISO with the 5DIII alone unless you are prepared to spend $10k+ on a 600mm, 8.5lb full frame lens - but if you get the 7DII+6D combo you can simply use your 7DII when you need reach and your 6D when you need high ISO.  Best of both worlds without having to spend $10k on a single lens or being stuck having to crop in post every long subject you shoot (plus having the ability to actually see and frame far away subjects in the viewfinder).

In addition to the increased flexibility of both APS/APS-C you will as a side bonus then have a backup camera! :)

Sell tokina.  Sell Canon 15-85.  Note its good to get all EF/fullframe lenses if you go this route so they work on both bodies.
Buy Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II - will have different FOV depending on what camera body you put it on (7DII or 6D).  Since you will likely use the 6D for landscape, the wide end of this lens would be perfect for that - then when you put it on the 7DII you will get a bit more reach on the tele end which you'd probably want for your wildlife subject matter.  24-70mm f/2.8L II is also unique as it has minimal coma wide open so its great for stars.
Future buys: Canon 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye; Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS; Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 16, 2014, 01:13:59 AM »
1. Interchangable focus screen (still baffled they took this out of 5D3)
2. ISO performance comparable to 6D

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:16:21 PM »
I would buy the wireless addon despite the expense... IF Canon got their act together on the software side.

While the iPhone app is decent...

-There is no Windows phone/Lumia app at all. (i.e. for Lumia 1020 - best photography smartphone that exists)
-The desktop PC version is an all around mess with very obvious spaghetti code
-There is no Windows 8 Touch app (i.e. for Surface and windows tablets) at all
-I heard the Android version needs work too, but I have no experience with it.

Either way, Canon's needs to spend some real money on software development before they get me to buy an addon like that.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:52:43 AM »
Woohoo interchangeable focusing screens, Canon is listening!

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 14, 2014, 07:54:55 PM »
I think Samsung has a long, long way to go before they can be even remotely close as a professional alternative to Canon.

Lenses / Re: What New Lens are You Most Excited About?
« on: September 13, 2014, 02:25:05 AM »
Here is my  "Something else" newly announced lens I am most excited about:
None of the above.


Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: September 10, 2014, 02:09:00 PM »
Thanks for the pic Mack, it is nicely controlled but in these shots I do not see the punchiness of the 16-35 f/2.8L II sunburst (which has sharper/less diffuse rays).  If Canon were to release a lens that could do rays as punchy as the 16-35 f/2.8L II, but as controlled as the 16-35 f/4L IS - now that would be awesome.  I really love how commanding the sun looks in 16-35 f/2.8 II shots, however the uncontrolled nature of them (often extremely long) can be intrusive in pictures sometimes.  I have to say for landscape in general, the 16-35 f/4L does look like the best bet for now!
No problem and I haven't had enough time to get a good feel for the lens, but I think it will give some nice sunbursts with time & practice.  Assuming the 24-70 f/2.8 II is pretty similar, I've been able to get some nice effects with it, particularly for cityscapes with night lighting. 

The only other option might be the EF-M 11-22 IS, which has a similar design but with fewer aperture blades.  That might be that sweet spot of dramatic, yet controlled sunburst.  I've had one for a little over a week now, but haven't had a chance to test it out yet.  I'll update you as I have time to shoot with it and the 16-35 f/4 IS of course.

Yes, the sunstar looks remarkably similar, if almost identical to the 24-70 II.  Its not a bad sunstar, and probably less distracting than the 16-35 II's, but it isn't quite as punchy as the 16-35 II's (meaning the rays are wider and more diffuse, rather than thinner and sharper).

Does the # of blades affect the sharpness/diffuseness of the rays?  I thought that it only affected the number of rays, and that to get sharp rays you need straight aperture blades instead of curved.  However, everything I've read about the 16-35 f/2.8 II seems to indicate it also has curved aperture blades, so I am not sure about this one.

Photography Technique / Re: Benefits of IS in fast shutter speeds
« on: September 10, 2014, 12:16:18 PM »
Where IS really helps in action photography is long focal lengths.  While IS may not be of use at 70mm, when you are at 200mm-600mm IS can come in handy as the shutter speed starts to come close to the focal length.  While you might not use 1/180 for outdoors in the bright light, when it starts to get dark or if indoors you may want to use something like that and IS will be of great help when that situation occurs.  Still fast enough to freeze moderately fast motion, but slow enough that you can get camera shake at long focal lengths.

If you are just doing outdoor sports at ~1/600 or faster, though, IS will be of minimal use.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43