Messages

1

Lenses / Re: help!! 40mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.4?

« on: December 16, 2012, 02:40:23 PM »

Get the 50 1.4.  Then you can save up for the 40 and buy it yourself - it's cheaper than the 50 so you'll get there more quickly. 

2

Lenses / Re: Normal Lens or High-End Compact?

« on: December 05, 2012, 04:21:25 PM »

That leaves a 17-55 vs Sigma 30 1.4 debate.  On image quality alone would the 17-55 maybe be preferred in most cases?  I'm getting good with my flash and don't really need less than 2.8 for non-indoor sports pics. 

I have the Sigma 30 and the Canon 15-85, and I'd say that within its aperture range the Canon IQ is better than the Sigma, so I would expect that to go for the 17-55 as well.  But I still like using the Sigma as a walkaround lens, partly because its a prime (so I have to think a bit more) and partly because it handles very nicely.  I find the Canon heavy and bulky (clumsy?) by comparison, and the 17-55 is bigger and heavier still.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Where to get photography training?

« on: November 26, 2012, 12:37:52 PM »

The Open University in the UK run just such a course, which I can thoroughly recommend, having done it myself.  It's web based, so you can do it from anywhere in the world. Details here: http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/T189.htm

4

Lenses / Re: 28mm 1.8 or 40mm 2.8 on 60D?

« on: October 22, 2012, 12:01:05 PM »

If you want to travel light and still have the versatility of a zoom, you could do a lot worse than take the kit 18-55 IS, a highly underrated lens IMO. That plus one of the primes.

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: APS-C vs megapixels for zoom

« on: September 28, 2012, 07:01:03 AM »

Divide the square root of 22 by the square root of 10. It works out at about 1.48. Note that a 10mp area cropped from the centre of a 5DIII sensor will be larger than APS-C, because the pixels are larger than those of a 40D

6

Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR

« on: July 30, 2012, 09:29:07 AM »

About the most recent one I could find...

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs

« on: July 22, 2012, 10:41:47 AM »

I'd like to know whether the new EF-M lenses will fit on a DSLR.  The 22mm F2 would be great on a crop body.

8

Software & Accessories / Re: Which shoulder bag for 5D Mark III + Kit lens ?

« on: April 18, 2012, 09:02:29 AM »

I used a Tamrac Velocity 6X http://www.tamrac.com/5766.htm with a 400D and a couple of small lenses, and can thoroughly recommend it for that.  When I upgraded to a 50D, I got the Velocity 7X, which is the next size up and will happily accommodate the 50D plus 15 - 85 and 10-22.  However, I find the weight of that combo becomes very tiring to carry on one shoulder after a couple of hours, and your setup will be heavier. Like Neuro above I find a backpack much more comfortable.

I now use a Lowepro Versapack 200AW http://www.lowepro.com/versapack, which can be configured so that you can access your camera from the side (other models are available which do the same thing), almost as quickly as from a shoulder bag.  I find I can carry this all day without discomfort, and fit my lunch and a waterproof in it too. 

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Buying 60D, what lens + accessories get?

« on: March 25, 2012, 12:30:27 PM »

My walkaround kit is a 50D with the 15-85 and one other lens, usually the 10-22 or the Sigma 30mm, and I find the weight of that setup becomes a bit tiring to carry on one shoulder after a couple of hours. I suggest a rucsack-type bag carried on both shoulders, but accessible from the side.  There are a number available - I use the Lowe-pro Versapak 200 AW.  I find access to the camera is almost as quick and easy as with a shoulder bag, and it's much more comfortable to carry.

10

Lenses / Re: 10-22 and 15-85

« on: February 24, 2012, 08:04:57 AM »

I have both the 10-22 and 15-85, and with my copies on my 50D the 15-85 is noticeably sharper at overlapping focal lengths.  I'd be interested to know if anyone else has found the same.

11

Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands-On With the 3 New Lenses

« on: February 16, 2012, 05:50:04 AM »

I see the hoods for the new lenses are to feature locking buttons.  Does this mean that the hoods will now be supplied with the non-Ls?  Perhaps this explains their price. 

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Full Frame body with crop mode ( that can use EF-S lenses)

« on: February 15, 2012, 08:46:35 AM »

it would only be a problem with the current EF-S 10-22 since that is the ONLY EF-S lens that takes some advantage of the EF-S short back flange concept (rear element closer to sensor). All other current EF-S lenses have no rear elements protruding into the mirrorbox.

Are you sure about that?  I've just had a look at my EF-S lenses (15-85, 18-55, 55-250 as well as the 10-22) and they all seem to have the same protrusion.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DOF FF vs Crop...

« on: February 13, 2012, 12:11:12 PM »

The main reason that a larger sensor means shallower DoF is that for the same framing with a smaller sensor, you need to either be further from the subject, or use a longer focal length, either of which means deeper DoF.

shorter

14

Lenses / Re: A good low light- environmental portrait lens?

« on: February 07, 2012, 02:31:09 PM »

Another thought - if you have a good lighting setup, a decent small-sensor point and shoot (G12, S100, etc) will give you sharp pictures with all the depth of field you need at a fraction of the cost of a lens.

15

Lenses / Re: A good low light- environmental portrait lens?

« on: February 07, 2012, 11:39:34 AM »

If you want good background detail, you're going to need depth of field, and therefore a small aperture. I don't think that's compatible with low light situations if the main subject is anything that moves, so you're going to need light.

Since you're not trying to blur the background, I don't think you're looking for a classic portrait lens. I would suggest a good general purpose zoom, like the EF-S 17-55 or the 24-105 F4, depending on how wide you want to go.