September 19, 2014, 04:19:58 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 - papa-razzi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS versus EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:51:03 AM »
Thanks Everyone.
I think I'm going to sell my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS and my 7D and get a 7DmII when it comes out. (if it isn't too crazy expensive)

I have a EF 70-300L and it seems to do the trick, at least for good light.  I will have football from now until end of November, and most of the games are daylight games.  (the little guys 11 years old)

Thanks again.

Lenses / EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS versus EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:39:15 AM »
I have a EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS I bought used to use for sports, but I found that the AF never really kept up, so I haven't used it much.  Do I have a bad copy, or is this fairly normal for this lens.  (This is all with a 7D)

Is it worth selling it and getting the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II ?  I have heard the image quality of the mark II is much better.  Is this lens any good for sports, or should I go with a prime instead?


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 03, 2013, 05:04:53 PM »
I'm looking at doing just the opposite.  I got a good deal on a Canon refurb 6D at $1,400 USD so I pulled the trigger, but I am seriously considering selling it and moving up to a 5DIII.

The 6D is great, but after having a 7D (still have) for 3 years I have a hard time getting adjusted to the AF system on th 6D.  I have ended up using the center point and reframing most of the time, because the outer points don't seem to provide coverage or struggle in lower light.

I thought I would be fine with the AF system on the 6D, and although I can get by on it, I really do miss the 7D AF system.

EOS-M / EOS M or Powershot S110?
« on: September 07, 2013, 12:17:45 AM »
I can get a powershot S110 or an EOS M for about $350 USD.

The question is, which one?

I want something for taking video where I don't have to manual focus (like on my DSLR).
I want something small for times when I don't want to carry the bigger DSLR around.  Ideally to fit in a pocket.

For those that have used both the EOS M and a Powershot S95, S100, S110 - which is a better solution?

The advantage of the S110 would be its size.  It will fit in my front pants pocket or shirt pocket.  But how good is the low light ability, or the image quality.

The advantage of the EOS M is better image quality, and if I get in a video taking situation where I need a long lens I have that option with the adapter.  However, I'm concerned how "pocketable" it really is - Especially with the 18-55 lens. 

I'd love some advice, as the S110 will be running out of stock prior to the S120 coming available for $100 more.  So I need to decide or lose the opportunity to go with the S110.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Highest Usable Iso?
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:54:45 PM »
Just got my 6D yesterday.  I shot a High School cross country race with it yesterday late afternoon.  So here is my 1 sports even comparison of the 6D vs 7D.

AF kept up for the most part.  I used center point only servo.  Not as good as my 7D, but I didn't miss many shots due to AF.  I really missed the 8 FPS and large raw buffer on the 7D.  I had to shoot JPEG only on the 6D to get any kind of fps.

I was using a 70-300L and I thought I was going to miss the crop factor on the long end.  What I found is that the wide end was much more usable at 70mm than on the 7D.  I got a lot of after-the-race candid adn posed shots which I would have had to change for a wider lens with the 7D, and the long end of the 70-300L was just fine on the 6D.  So that was kind of a nice surprise for me.

The view finder doesn't seem as bright on the 6D - at least it was very hard to see the focus points in the view finder when the subject was in darker light such as shadows.  I never had trouble seeing the focus points on the 7D.  Still, using the center point worked out OK for what I was doing.

I used auto ISO, 1/1000 shutter - I had shots at 3200 ISO and 6000 ISO.  I really couldn't tell much of a difference when the focus was on.  On the 7D, the noise bothered me at ISO 800+.  In very low light situations, noise would bother me at ISO 400.  Maybe I have a more noisy copy of the 7D.  Noise is the only complaint I have witht he 7D - othewise it is a fantastic camera.

Unless you are doing fine art prints or very large enlargements, I can't see high ISO being a real issue at all with the 6D.  I'm very pleased.  I'll have a better perspective when I do some indoor theater events with the 6D.  My 7D fell over on its face trying to do that.

I'll keep using the 7D on all my outdoor sporting events.  But the 6D is likely to be the camera I use for most everything else.

PowerShot / Re: Compact Camera suggestions?
« on: August 28, 2013, 03:58:11 PM »
Eos m.

One shot af used sensibly (in a gym the action will be fairly contained)
+ 22mm = bright sharp lens, v good low light for 'compact' too, great video.

B&H has EOS M w/ 18-55 kit for $355, or EOS M /w 22mm & 90 EX flash for $399

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:26:40 PM »
I just picked up a refurbished 6D direct from Canon for $1,600 USD  (it arrives tomorrow).  After starting my DSLR journey with an XSi about 5 1/2 years ago, (then traded up for the 7D about 3 years ago), I am finally getting the FF camera.

For me it was a no brainer - roughtly 1,000 reasons (the difference in cost of a 6D vs a 5DIII)

I already own and will keep a 7D, so I won't use the 6D for a sports/action camera.  I don't do video, so none of those features matter to me.

I want to do portraits, indoor events (plays, etc.), landscapes, and explore some other creative stuff.

If I wasn't keeping the 7D, it would have been a more difficult decision, and I would have likely gone for the 5DIII (because I'm just not in a position to justify the cost of the 1Dx - but who wouldn't want that puppy)

Lenses / Re: We want more EF-S lens
« on: August 24, 2013, 12:43:58 AM »
Its a one sided poll.  I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing.  I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.

+1  I'm with Spokane on this one.  The EF-S lenses exist to fill gaps where the EF lenses don't exist.  For example the 15-85 and 17-55 cover the normal zoom on the crops where the 24-xx don't get wide enough.  The 10-22 is the same - a wide angle for crops where the 17-40 wouldn't be that wide.  The EF-S 60mm macro is another.

For most everything else, there is an EF lens that will do the trick nicely.  We really don't need a horde of EF-S lenses.  I think Canon has done a nice job on plugging the gaps for crop.

The rest of the EF-S lenses are consumer lenses for the entry level person.

Lenses / Re: Lens Rental Recommendation
« on: August 21, 2013, 01:25:50 AM »
Rent the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8.  Try pics with and without the flash (with is ok if there are relatively low white ceilings for bouncing).

Agreed +1


Lenses / Re: Need daily lens suggestion
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:43:33 AM »
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  The 24-xx zooms are great on FF, but on APS-C they don't give you a wide angle.  IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

+1  General purpose often means indoors, and unless you want to wear a flash on your camera or use the pop up, you will want the f/2.8.

I have both the 24-105 and the 17-55.  I never use the 24-105 indoors, it isn't wide enough or fast enough. 

The 15-85 is very sharp and gives extra range either side of the 17-55.  It's one of the best and most useful APS-C lenses made.

Ask yourself how much you shoot indoors with your general purpose lens.  I had a friend that had a 15-85 on a 7D and we were at a cubscout pinewood derby event, in an church gym.  A flash wasn't useable due to the distance most of the time.  He couldn't get decent pics.  After that he sold the 15-85 and bought a 17-55.

Regarding buying all EF lenses because at some point you will upgrade to FF.  I personally think this is flawed thinking.  Buy the best lenses for the camera you have and will be using.  Especially if it is the main lens that will be on your camera most of the time.  If you get a FF camera, you will either keep the crop camera and still use the lenses, or sell the camera with the lenses.  With Canon lenses you don't lose much money on the resale.

I have done a ton of High School volleyball, and tried all kinds of lenses.  I have a 7D, so I have more reach and really can't go above 1600 ISO and be happy with the results.  I ended up using a EF 80 f/1.8 as my favorite lens.  I was able to get shots from partway up the stands as well as on the floor.  If I had a FF camera, I would use the 135L, which would be a similar combo.

I had a lot of freedom to walk around the gym for almost all games, so it worked out well for me.  However, if you are limited in where you can place yourself, the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you more felxibility.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D logical upgrade from 7D?
« on: August 16, 2013, 01:56:19 PM »
The 6D is not an "upgrade" from the 7D.  The cameras are designed for different purposes.

For Image Quality, FF sensor, low light shooting - the 6D is far superior.

For shooting action - FPS, Auto Focus - the 7D is far superior.

If you want both image quality and abiltiy to shoot action, then you must look at a 5D III or a 1Dx.

From what I have understood from the OP's post and responses in this thread, the 5D III is the camera that will satisfy.  I suggest keeping a sharp eye out for sales on the 5D III and pulling the trigger when it gets around $2,600 USD.  Save the money spent renting a 6D and put it toward a 5DIII.

Yes it is....thats why I UPGRADED.... Image Quality, low light shooting (where it focuses much better than a 7D) are what is important.

I had the 7D since it came out, never ever used the high FPS.

Its a better camera than the 5D Mkii which was better than the 7D.

You missed the point entirely.  Granted the 6D is a better camera for your needs, and therefore was an upgrade - for you.  But, in general, the 6D is not an upgrade to the 7D straight across. 

Let me ask you.  Is a Porche 911 an upgrade to a Land-Rover Range Rover?  Or to a Cadilac Escalade?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D logical upgrade from 7D?
« on: August 15, 2013, 12:07:04 PM »
The 6D is not an "upgrade" from the 7D.  The cameras are designed for different purposes.

For Image Quality, FF sensor, low light shooting - the 6D is far superior.

For shooting action - FPS, Auto Focus - the 7D is far superior.

If you want both image quality and abiltiy to shoot action, then you must look at a 5D III or a 1Dx.

From what I have understood from the OP's post and responses in this thread, the 5D III is the camera that will satisfy.  I suggest keeping a sharp eye out for sales on the 5D III and pulling the trigger when it gets around $2,600 USD.  Save the money spent renting a 6D and put it toward a 5DIII.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 15, 2013, 11:18:42 AM »
I totally feel your pain.  I have spent many hours dealing with color management for my Pixma Pro 9000 II, and have never been able to get it 100% right.  I don't think a comprehensive, straight forward explaination of color management (at least in windows) exists.

One thing I discovered quite by accident with windows color management is that the system defaults for a device, and the settings for the device itself are separate - even though the screens themselves look identical.  One setting is accessed from the devices tab, and the other is accessed by going into the Advanced tab.  It may be worth checking into this.  It isn't logical, but perhaps some software is grabbing the local device profile, and others somehow the system profile.

If someone really knows this stuff cold, and can explain it to non-color scientists, you would have a big audience.  I'm certain the people that wrote the windows color management help and doc files have no clue.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 5 versus Photoshop Elements 11
« on: August 12, 2013, 04:52:11 PM »
Ultimately as your photography and editing progress, you will end up with both Lightroom and either PSE or Photoshop.  Most professionals use both Lightroom and Photoshop. 

Therefore, the question is where is the best place to start - PSE or Lightroom?  Unfortunately, there is no correct answer - hense the various suggestions to your post.  I now have lightroom and PSE 11, but started with PSE 8 only.

Why start with PSE:  PSE is two programs, the Organizer and the Editor.  The organizer is a database/catalog for your photos.  It allows you to tag photos with locations, events, etc.  It has face recognition, geo tagging, and some other nice things such as sorting your photos by calendar, photo shoot, etc.  It is a fairly powerful program.  There are some very basic editing capabilities that are part of the organizer as well.  The Editor is a stripped down version of Photoshop, with a modified UI.  For most non-professionals, the PSE Editor is all you would want, and at this point I don't ever see myself progressing beyond PSE and needing the full version of Photoshop.  I have been able to take cars, billboards and electric poles out of a landscape photo.  I have also swapped heads from a few photos in a large group photo to get everyone smiling.  Many of the plug-ins/add-ons that are available for Photoshop are also available for PSE.  You could get PSE and be very happy with it for quite some time, and for some folks that is all they ever need. 

So, why bother with Lightroom?  I found a few downsides to PSE - primarily in the Organizer.  The organizer is very much a consumer level product and doesn't scale for an enthusiast or professional.  The biggest problem for me was performance.  The PSE organizer is not 64-bit or multithreaded (at least that is what I found with version 8).  I have a large number of photos, and when I tried to really use all the features (face recognition, multiple tags, etc.) it was just way too slow and basically unusable.  I read about others with large databases that were fine, and the newer version might be better.  Performance was the main reason I went to Lightroom.  One other big difference is The PSE Editor is not designed to work well with multiple files at once - for example, changing the white balance on all the photos from a photo shoot.  Lightroom is designed to be the heart of a photographer's digital work flow.  It can be customized heavily, and you can process a lot of photos more efficiently - from importing photos to printing or posting.  Lightroom feels very integrated.  Everything flows well.  PSE feels a bit cobbled together - especially between the organizer and the editor.

Starting with Lightroom:  If I were to do it over again, I would have started out with Lightroom.  I outgrew the organizer quite quickly.  Lighroom does it all, except for the occasional need to make extensive edits to a photo - at which point, you can launch an external editor from within lightroom (i.e. PSE Editor) and do what you need.  I very rarely need to use PSE.  You will never grow out of Lightroom.  There is nothing in the PSE Organizer that I miss, and I knew the PSE Organizer quite well.  Lightroom can import a PSE Organizer catalog, so upgrading from PSE to Lightroom is fairly painless.

So, bottom line - it is up to you where the best place to start is.  If you ultimately outgrow the PSE Organizer, moving to Lightroom is fairly straightforward.  If you outgrow the PSE Editor, then you need the full Photoshop. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10