November 28, 2014, 10:00:16 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 - takesome1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:33:20 PM »
Seanter

I didn't read everyone's advice.
I didn't need to to throw my vote in.

I would upgrade the body before anymore lenses.
Just the  t5i would be a good leap. The new 7D II would be an ever bigger leap.

Like the jeweler we husbands go visit this time of year, they indirectly ask you to put a value on your love. Maybe it's time she had a 5D III and a nice 24-70mm f/2.8 II. She will be set and so will you (for a while)

takesome1, good point about the jeweler.  If only wives visited the camera store the same way husbands visited the jeweler!    ;D

As for the 7D2 or 5D3... while we all love those cameras, the Rebels and xxD bodies are designed for the entry-mid level consumer shooter.  The (much) higher cost and feature sets of the D series bodies might be wasted if those superior features aren't needed, valued or even understood.

And how much better does a 1 ct perform than a 1/2 ct diamond?

But you speak the truth. The best thing the OP could do is casually drop a few questions. Ask if she thinks Full Frame cameras are better, what they do better and why people own them. If she is kind of clueless he could hang with the crop bodies. If it looks like she wouldn't benefit from Full Frame I would watch and see if she is still using the icon's for shooting like the running man, portrait head, mountain for landscape. If so the t5i is probably enough camera.
If she hasn't learned to shoot in manual mode I would probably stick with the t5i. She would probably be very happy with it and a new lens.

My wife has a t5i, I just bought a 7D II. I own a 1D IV and a 5D II. She kind of understands the running man, portrait and mountain icons. I wouldn't give her the 7D II, for what she does the 7D II without those icons and the flip screen it wouldn't be as useful to her. I let her use the others sometimes but the pictures are usually a mess.


2
Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 25, 2014, 09:46:58 PM »
Hi,

You're right - I meant Prime Tele. And I suppose I'm getting at a need for faster action at low light. Does that make sense?
I appreciate all the comments - and am leaning towards a new 70D at this point. I do understand that bodies are a personal choice, but knowing the wife as I do, she'll never buy one unless I force the issue. I'd rather do a return for something else than a gift cert. The real question then, at this point, is will a 70D be enough, or should I do the 70D and a lens.

Thanks
Sean

I think I had the answer on my previous post, but of course you buy both. More is better.

100mm f/2.8L IS macro, best L lens to star with IMO

To other advice I have read, the bodies are a personal choice doesn't apply to the new crop bodies. Just like their price suggest each price level just has more features an a bit better IQ and AF system.

3
Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 25, 2014, 09:38:19 PM »
Seanter

I didn't read everyone's advice.
I didn't need to to throw my vote in.

I would upgrade the body before anymore lenses.
Just the  t5i would be a good leap. The new 7D II would be an ever bigger leap.

Like the jeweler we husbands go visit this time of year, they indirectly ask you to put a value on your love. Maybe it's time she had a 5D III and a nice 24-70mm f/2.8 II. She will be set and so will you (for a while)


4
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot
« on: November 25, 2014, 09:26:49 PM »
You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

Odd and definitive point of view, others have given good reason to go for the 2.8.

As for the latter half of your statement, "monster"? That lens is hardly a monster lens unless you're Monty Burns... ;)

I don't think it's too odd to say you won't need f/2.8 much. Zoo shots are going to be mostly about up close and recording detail and you could lose a lot of that with shallow DOF.  OOF fur not too interesting!

Depends on the zoo of course, but my last zoo trip was about shooting over fences or through glass - not so much through fences. On that trip I used my 400 f/5.6 and the 70-200 f/2.8.  Having checked those shots, there are a lot with the 400mm, but those with the 70-200 tended to be at 200mm and few at wide apertures.

Only exception was a close up (through glass) of one gorilla grooming another - that was at f/3.2 and did benefit from a portraity shallow DOF.  But definitely the exception.

So, I think there's little to be lost with the f/4, and if it allows you to play with a 24mm f/1.4 as well - bonus!

You haven't been to our local Zoo then. All the big cats are behind chain link or thick glass which is usually dirty.
The problem is that the 200mm is almost to short for the ground layout. I have some great 300 mm f/2.8 baby tiger pics.

Some of me favorite pics are from the 24-70mm F/2.8 shot at or near wide open. They are orangutan and upland gorilla portraits.

If I am going to photograph the zoo I am taking the big guns, if I am taking the grandkids I am packing light.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 10:30:01 AM »
The 7D2 should have an advantage with the crop, but in several cases I am not seeing that.  For example in the coyote shot from earlier I compared it with a similarly posed coyote taken in worse light with my 5D3 but same rough ISO (400) and found that the detail is roughly the same despite the smaller size of the coyote on the 5D3.

http://www.calevphoto.com/p1067692827#h3ad922d8

In terms of the underexposed images that is what the light was at the time.  With my 5D3 normally I would have shot these at ISO 3200, but at the time I was trying to get a good comparison between them.  The point of illustration was the noise and loss of detail - not the quality of the shots.

I looked in LR just now to see the average ISO for my shots and can see:
ISO 3200 and above - 20%
ISO 1600 to 2500 - 25%
ISO 800 to 1250 - 20%

This is of all my shots, so most of the shots at lower ISOs were tripod based landscapes while most of the shots at higher ISOs are of wildlife.

If you want to shoot at ISO 3200 and above the 7D II is not the right tool.
The half hour around sunset and just before is a curse for wildlife photographers. Animals start moving, the light is to low. I feel the pain.
I wouldn't push the 7D II past ISO 1600 and expect great results shooting wildlife. At sunrise the 7D II starts work later than the 5D III and will end its day before the 5D III.

My 7D II underexposes a bit over 1/3 of a stop.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 07:40:22 AM »
Here are some sample images to illustrate my frustration.  Note that these images from an artistic standpoint suck - but were an attempt to take a photo of the same subject under the same realistic lighting conditions with both cameras.  Both images are near 100% crops and have absolutely no noise reduction or PP from the RAW images.

The first one is from the 5D3 at ISO 1600. The lighting was very poor at this time, but the details are fair.  A similar shot of a more interesting subject could probably be salvaged.
6O6C8809.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The next is of the same subject with the 7D2 at ISO 800. The detail on the faces is much rougher.  The pattern just below the head (the eye is slightly OOF) is less defined than the 5D3 image.
388A0341.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I do have other images at ISO 800 that are better.  You are correct that pushed to the right the results are better, but I often do not have this convenience in Seattle.

Here is a mink I took during the same shoot about two minutes after these shots.  I took it with my 5D3 at ISO 1600 and it was still too dark so I had to boost up the exposure quite a bit.  I then did some PP and cleaned up the noise.  The resulting shot still has nice details.  There is no way the 7D2 would have done the same.
6O6C8788-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

You just haven't developed an understanding of your gear yet.
Yes the 7D II RAW files are noisy, and they can be cleaned up in LR.
ISO 1600 is quite usable once you properly PP.
Do this however, shoot RAW + JPG and compare. In camera JPG conversion is doing a fair job at cleaning up noise.
If your PP isn't exceeding the 7D II the problem is in your PP not the camera.
If both are still bad maybe you have a bad copy.
The copy I have is performing exactly (and sometimes better than) I expected.

Also if you think the noise out of the 7D II should be as clean as the 5d IIIthen the problem is with your expectations.
I have never seen this clai anywhere. You should have expected at least a stop difference.

7
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot
« on: November 19, 2014, 05:20:25 PM »
If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.

This is the best answer you have received so far.
Last year I went to shoot the tiger cubs at the zoo. They were fun to shoot but F/2.8 II was a must because of the chain link fence and the position you I had to shoot from. I also had my 300mm F/2.8 with me which even worked better when the tigers were far enough away.

8
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 05:02:20 PM »


I watched a dpreview of the 7dII at a game ranch in Montana, DD, I think. When I looked at the fees, it was like $350 for 90 minute experience photographing a prime animal such as a snow leopard.



Is this the same place that Canon held one of the Explorers of Light seminars a few years ago?


9
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:47:14 PM »
This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.

There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at a Zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at the back yard feeder.
What is unethical is when you present your pictures as real "wildlife" taken in a natural setting.

Well that's just the thing... most wildlife photographers wont go to a sanctuary take an award winning photograph, and then submit to national geo and say they are in the middle of yellowstone...  But, in the end of the day, if a commercial photographer is assigned a task of getting a specific shot that an advertising or marketing manager wants of a leopard or wildcat stalking a prey and it has to be to ready for press on friday, there's little difference if they risk their lives and livelyhood in the wilderness hoping to get a shot vs going to a sanctuary and nailing the shot.  National Geo allows for many photographers to spend weeks if not months on assignment, but others dont get that luxury as a working photographer, a professional photographer.

It is true most amateurs do not have that luxury to put in the time.
Lack of time shouldn't mean dishonesty is ok.
Nothing wrong with a staged wilderness pictures, I could see where it would have its uses.
In todays photoshopped world it is hard to find the real thing anymore.

10
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:25:58 PM »
If you are in Eastern Ontario, Canada..... I suggest "the crazy cat lady's cat ranch".

I think they may have one of those in Nevada to. Photography will probably cost you extra above the door charge.

11
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:24:36 PM »
This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.

There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at a Zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at the back yard feeder.
What is unethical is when you present your pictures as real "wildlife" taken in a natural setting.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D II sensor measurement
« on: November 18, 2014, 06:57:20 PM »
Totally useless

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is IQ better with smaller files?
« on: November 17, 2014, 09:57:33 PM »
If this is true it would be a good indication that memory card companies are giving kick backs to camera companies to make files larger for no reason.

I doubt this question could even get a good Raw vs JPG debate started.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Can the new 7d mark ii challenge the 1d mark iv?
« on: November 11, 2014, 09:17:50 AM »

my pictures speak for them selfs www.flickr.com/photos/corey-hayes/

As to whichever body you used ability to focus and your skill as a photographer yes.

As to whether the 7D II or the 1D IV has the better AF system no. Both cameras will achieve focus and both have fine AF systems. It is the shots you do not get that matter in this comparison.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Can the new 7d mark ii challenge the 1d mark iv?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:35:59 PM »
I have both cameras and love the mkiv but its AF is not really up to snuff especially with 1.4 on a 500mm it struggles. For fast action the 7d will be my number one choice.

That's hard for me to believe since I use the 1D4 with a 300+2x TC all the time with no issues.  Its a little slower, sure, but that's the electronics in the TC not the camera's AF system.  I get that the 7DII (and 1DX/5DIII) have a more advanced AF system but its hard for me to imagine how big an effect it can really have since the AF on the 1D4 is already amazing.  I'm going to have to rent a 7DII in a bit when I've got some free time to really evaluate it and see if the AF upgrade makes a big enough difference to be worth saving up for.

The 1dmkiv has very very focus points that are cross type that work at f5.6 and only the center is cross type at F4, the difference is night and day and the 7Dmkii has the best AF system I have used!

It is hard for me to believe to. There must be something wrong with your 1D IV, my copy is very fast and very accurate. From the test I have done the 1D IV is outperforming the 7D II by a fair margin with the long lenses. On shorter lenses there is little difference.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26