Topics

1

Software & Accessories / Choosing/Stacking ND Filters

« on: December 21, 2012, 04:30:11 AM »

I'm considering getting the B+W 3-stop and 6-stop NDs, and just stacking if I need more light loss.  I get that you shouldn't stack filters if you can help it.  But if it's the choice between two better quality filters (say a 3-stop and a 6-stop that could approximate a 9-stop ND filter) and three poorer quality filters (say a set of 3-, 6-, and 10-stop filters) that cost about the same, could the inherent quality of the better filters make stacking less horrible? 

Also, how good are variable ND filters? "I heard on the Internet" that the interactions between the two polarizers can cause rough light gradients that should otherwise appear smooth.  Plus, you've got 4 surfaces from the two polarizers anyway, so can IQ really be any better than stacking two high quality fixed ND filters?

Any other thoughts or experiences on how you configure your ND capability would be great.  Thanks!

2

Lenses / Which (if any) non-L lenses are enviro-sealed?

« on: December 13, 2012, 12:10:54 PM »

So, thread title says it all.  I imagine it goes something like this:

Customer: Why isn't the 17-55/2.8 IS environmentally sealed?
Canon: That's a feature we offer on our L-designated lenses.
Customer: So weather-sealing is something that only high-end gear offers?
Canon: Essentially.
Customer: But prosumer bodies like the 60D are sealed as well.
Canon: Our innovative lens mounts allow such customers to use sealed EF lenses for a fully dust- and moisture-resistant system.
Customer: Due to the crop factor of such bodies, a 24-70/2.8 L would end up being too long. 
Canon: You could use the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L.
Customer: So the only option would be a lens that costs twice as much as the camera and is obviously intended for a different purpose and platform?  Why do you offer sealed EF-S cameras, but no sealed general-purpose lenses intended for those cameras?
Canon: ... Jeez, you guys are picky.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Help: Cheap FF or high end Crop for next body?

« on: December 12, 2012, 05:15:00 PM »

Background:

I shoot wildlife, landscapes, travel, indoors, low-light, etc.  Not much portraiture or action.  I currently have a 450D with a 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 L IS.  My main non-artistic weakness is shaky hands, which is why I use, and only seriously consider, lenses with IS.

Goals in upgrade:

• Better noise in low light/high ISO situations.
• Good AF (AF point coverage and performance, speed in focusing, UI for point selection).
• Availability of lenses.
• Low weight/physical size. (related: I won't be using two bodies)
• Environmental sealing.

Crop/FF vs. Goals:

If I upgraded to a newer crop body, I'd gain better ISO performance, potentially better AF, opportunity for me to reuse my 17-55, maintenance of reach of my 70-200 (to 320mm), and likely lower weight than a FF option.  The environmental sealing may or may not exist on the body, and definitely doesn't exist on the 17-55.

If I went with a 6D, I'd get better low light performance and better ISO performance, potentially better AF, and environmental sealing.  I'd have to replace my 17-55 with the 24-70/4 L IS, which while smaller, sealed, and capable of near-macro performance represents more expense and one lost stop.  I'd be able to continue using my 70-200 but would lose some reach on the FF sensor.  And lastly, the 6D would likely be bigger and heavier than crop options. 

How does the noise compare on something like a 60D with 17-55/2.8 IS, vs. a 6D with 24-70/4 IS?  If the 6D has to go up in ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture, will the resulting noise generally be more or less than the crop body at a lower ISO?  How about a 7D instead of a 60D?  In short, how does the low light benefit of going FF compare to the loss of a stop in aperture?

Thanks for any advice and help you can offer.