August 27, 2014, 05:35:28 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.

Topics - Sabaki

Pages: [1]
EOS Bodies / 6D+7Dii Vs 5D mkiii
« on: August 07, 2014, 12:33:41 PM »
My 500D, noble beast that she is, needs to be retired.

Her AF isn't sufficient when trying to catch quicker birds in flight and when it comes to low light photography, anything over ISO 800 affects image quality.

So I decided, that I wanted two cameras to replace her and set my sights on the 6D for the full frame goodness and 7Dii (yes, I know it's not out yet :D) for frames per second, AF system and so on.

But a friend is now messing with my mind. His advise? Get the 5Diii instead.

His contention is that the 5Diii will give me more bells and whistles than the 6D offers and provides sufficient resolution that would allow me to crop an image to equal the 1.6 "zoom" of a crop body.

But I'm not so sure that cropping an image shot at 400mm (FF) would give me the "fill" of a 640mm (APS-C) without negatively affecting image quality.

What would you guys do? If the 7Dii isn't announced this year, I may go for the 70D instead.

I'm really in need of some convincing that the full frame can replace a crop body.

Thanks in advance :)

Lenses / Canon EF 12-24mm f/2.8 L - Constructing the Enigma
« on: July 25, 2014, 08:53:58 AM »
So this post is purely a flight of fantasy and not based on fact but merely on hope.

Personally, I would love Canon to replace the 16-35mm focal length in favour of 12-24mm for it's flagship ultra wide lens. Yes, I do understand that there are many that enjoy that extra 11mm on the long side but as I've pointed out, this is kinda what I would ask for.

My non negotiables are these:
1. Focal length: 12-24
2. Aperture: f/2.8-f/22 (constant across focal range)
3. Weather sealed
4. Able to take filters
5. Unparalleled corner-to-corner and centre frame image quality.
6. Reticulinear

I'm not too concerned about IS for this focal range but I do acknowledge the many reviewers of the 16-35 f/4.0 IS stating IS as being impressive. 

So is this lens possible and what would it look like and weigh? Just how bulbous would such a front element be and would an 82mm thread size be possible?
I'm looking at a weight of between 550g-650g max.
Filtering a lens with 12mm on the wide end will bring obvious vignetting issues. Can this be mitigated?

Lots of fantasy I know, perhaps not even possible.

But if it was real, would YOU buy this lens?

Lenses / Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 23, 2014, 03:57:18 PM »
So Bokeh Monster is a term I use for those primes that weigh in with apertures larger than 2.8.

Now with photography being very expensive here in South Africa, I've only got space (and money) for one Bokeh Monster in my kit.

Which would you recommend?

I'm aware that the number of aperture blades plays a big part in creating bokeh but I'm also looking for decent AF performance and sharpness. I'm less worried about those abherrations (fringing/vignetting) that can be 'ticked' away in post.

I'd also like an opinion as to whether IS benefits the photographer when working at these extreme apertures.

Looking forward to hearing some opinions, especially those with working experience of these primes.

Thanks in advance guys :)

EOS Bodies / Ye Olde Film Photography
« on: June 15, 2014, 07:25:10 PM »
One of my mentors is, as he puts it, a relic of photography's film era.

He is ever willing to impart knowledge but he also enjoys explaining that there's a whole slice of photography that those of us, who started in the digital era, just don't get.

The one I'm aware of is that as film was an expensive medium, that offered limited shots, the photographers took their time composing a shot, thinking through all aspects before pulling the trigger.

So that leaves us digital era photographers with a more reckless reputation with a less than meticulous approach towards composition.

I think it's fair to say that as the entire industry has shifted towards digital, it is on the whole, a better medium.

But what of us digital age photographers? Are we missing some intrinsic components in our photography? Is the lackadaisical attitude offered by modern technology's high burst rate, high storage capabilities hampering what we do?

If you are a "relic from the film era"' what would you say us run-and-gun photographers are missing and should try implementing into our workflow?

As always, this is me trying to improve myself as a photographer and any advice offered will be much appreciated.

EOS Bodies / Educate me about AF systems
« on: June 12, 2014, 05:36:52 PM »
A few months back, a birder who just bought a 200-400 spoke of its performance on both the 5D3 and the 1DX.

He was perplexed as to why the 1DX (his friend's camera) was able to nail near perfect sharpness for a burst of up to 20 shots whereas the 5D3 (his camera), could only offer a return of roughly 40%.

As I had read that both bodies had the exact same AF systems, this struck me as odd.

Monday past I spent a few minutes chatting to a Canon repair agent. He said sure, they both have the same AF system but the 1DX has a dedicated processor that can identify a subject like a bird, person or ball and hold focus on it, whether the scene is somewhat crowded or even if that subject was to move in an erratic fashion.

I'm now very interested in understanding the components that make up the full AF system.

What would differentiate the 9 point AF system of say the 5D2 from that of the 500D's 9 point AF system? Would software of the superior 5D2 provide an advantage to its AF system?

Another question I have is, what happens when a subject is between AF points? If I'm tracking a bird in flight and for whatever reason, the bird ends up in a space between the camera's AF points, does this mean the bird is essentially in a blind spot and focus on the bird will be lost?

If I am making the correct assumption in the above paragraph, is this why action and wild life togs want as many AF as possible?

So another assumption from me is that the AF points are created through software. But are there electrical components that will prevent Canon from improving the AF system at a later stage with more AF points?

Software + Processor + Lens = AF System or not?

(My apologies if my questions are naive or silly but I do enjoy understanding these things.
Thanks guys ☺️)

Hey everybody

Can anybody who has experience with the Speedlite bracket give me some idea whether this is a worthwhile purchase and if it enhances one's portraiture?

I've read people like it but few say why.

Thanks folks

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / 430 RT
« on: May 15, 2014, 08:06:00 PM »
Has anybody heard or seen anything regarding a series 400 RT flash?

I'm kind of amazed that Canon haven't released one yet and I'm sure there's many out there who would appreciate a cheaper alternative to the fantastic yet expensive 600RT-EX.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Back Button Focussing and AF Points
« on: April 16, 2014, 06:31:35 AM »
I just attended a Canon Roadshow over the weekend where one of the speakers was extolling the virtues of Back Button Focussing (BBF).

The presenter explained about using BBF to gain sharpness on your subject and then recomposing your frame before engaging the shutter. It seems so logical and more precise to me!

His presentation finally made me 'get' BBF and I've decided to convert. Well, once the muscle memory kicks in

EOS Bodies / Evolution or the murder of art?
« on: March 18, 2014, 03:28:00 PM »
Disclaimer: This post is totally and utterly speculation and not based on actual developer announcements.

If the burst/frame count of cameras one day reaches and potentially exceeds 24 frames per second and photography possibly becomes an exercise of selecting frames from what is essentially a video reel, how would YOU, as a photographic artist feel about that?

I have a feeling that this advancement may initially raise it's head in camera phones for some strange reason.

Quite interested to hear opinions on this

EOS Bodies / Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 19, 2014, 05:21:58 AM »
Hi everybody  :)

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

Lenses / 16-35/FF or 10-22/APSC
« on: November 17, 2013, 03:49:29 AM »
I've read a good few reviews stating the high quality of the EF-S 10-22mm and these reviews generally include a direct comparison to the EF 16-35mm II.

Sure, the edge definitely goes to the 16-35 but by the smallest margins.

Since the D800 launched a few years back, it has become apparent that shooting landscapes has more to do with lens/body combinations than just the qualities of the lens.

So my question; head-to-head, some reviews say the 16-35 is marginally superior to the 10-22 but I'd like to know how much better a 5D mkIII mounted 16-35 compares to say a 70D mounted 10-22 for landscape photography.

Thanks for any feedback folks :)

Lenses / Canon 400mm f/5.6 focussing issues
« on: November 03, 2013, 08:17:30 AM »
Hey everybody :)

I'm looking for a little advise to hopefully allay my focussing issues with my Canon 400mm f/5.6.

I was out birding two days in a row where my lens would just not focus on anything in flight. I know on two occasions, my centre focus point (Canon 500D) was slap bang on a bird but the lens would not focus lock.

I experimented by focussing on reeds about 4-5 meters away then focussing on some buildings in the distance, it locked nearly 100% of the time with a very minor lag. The only time it did not focus on the building was when I tried focussing on a white wall, bathed in direct sunlight causing noticeable glare.

A more experienced photographer advised that its not my lens, its due to the cloudless sky being completely monotone blue. He mentioned the sharp sunlight is not giving the lens anything to lock onto.

You guys agree with his assessment? And birder with a 400 f/5.6 also experienced a similar result with her lens.

I had a USM motor of a Canon 100mm macro pack up for no reason and I'm worried this lens may be experiencing the same issue.

Thanks in advance for any advise/experiences everybody  :)

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Canon Ring Lite MR-14EX Serial Number
« on: October 25, 2013, 03:03:02 PM »
Hey Canonistas :)

Anybody know where the serial number is on the Ring Lite? Is there even one?

Needed for an insurance quote

Thanks everybody :)

Lenses / 24-70mm f/2.8 L mkII & 50mm f/1.4???
« on: October 22, 2013, 02:29:34 PM »
So I just bought the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L mk II yesterday and as luck would have it, was just offered a brand new Canon 50mm f/1.4 for a very, very good price.

So the question is, should I buy it? In fact, with the vaunted performance of the 24-70, does it still make sense to buy a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm or any other prime in that focal range?

I am thinking the only plus to those primes would be better bokeh, or am I being short sighted here?

I'm still learning this photography thing so apologies if my questions rankle.

Pages: [1]