December 18, 2014, 09:51:38 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 - FTb-n

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 13, 2014, 09:49:57 PM »
The video is nuts!

By Northrup's logic, my EF-S 18-135 should be sharper than my EF 70-200 f2.8L II within the same focal range.  But, it just isn't so.  By his math, the same 70-200 on a 7D should be sharper than on a 5D3 after cropping the  image in post.  But, this isn't so.  I've done my own real world tests.  Those 8 full frame megapixels can produce sharper images than those 18-20 crop body megapixels.  (The 7D2 only has 20 MP, not 24.)  Northrup fails consider the fact that larger full frame and smaller crop sensor pixels are different.

As for your dilemma, unless you shoot fast action in plenty of light, I can highly recommend the 5D3 with the 70-200 f2.8L II.  The full frame body will give you greater control of DOF (because f2.8 yields a smaller DOF), better performance in low light, and more color depth.  I also think that the focal range is more useful on full frame for events and indoor sports.

However, this lens is a great lens on crop.  It was my most used lens by far with my 7D -- far sharper than my non-L tele-zooms.  Based on reviews, the 7D2 would also be a fine choice.

There is one area in which I do agree with Northrup.  The 24-70 2.8 II may not be the best choice for crop, only because the 17-55 f2.8 is such an exceptional lens.  It likely offers a more useful focal range, plus it has IS.  However, while I haven't done head-to-head tests, I would expect the 24-70 2.8 II to be sharper than the 17-55.  When I use my 7D and need a short zoom, I still grab the 17-55 and would recommend it for the IS and wider focal length.  As long as you understand the limitations of each lens and they won't hinder your need, then either lens will be just fine on crop.

For what it's worth, before going full frame, my goto kit was a 60D/17-25 f2.8 and 7D/70-200 f2.8L II.

Software & Accessories / Re: Camera bag for 70-200mm 2.8 mounted
« on: December 10, 2014, 06:18:43 PM »
I use a ThinkTank Digital Holster 30 V2.0 on a padded Pro Speed Belt.  The belt seems easier to carry than a shoulder bag and this holster expands so you can leave the hood in shooting position -- very handy.

I'm still convinced that if humankind can put a man on the moon, it can produce a sealed swivel screen. Imho it's much more likely it's not on "pro" cameras simply because it has a flimsy "gadget" appeal and contradicts marketing of a real man's camera like 5d3+
I agree that weather sealing a swivel screen shouldn't be an issue.  The biggest weakness of the 5D3 in the sealing department is the mode dial.  I would think a swivel screen could be designed with sealing that matches that of the dial.

I have a 60D and like its swivel screen.  But, I get paranoid whenever I hand it to my kids for fear breaking the thing off in an absentminded moment.  Okay, in some situations I'm afraid that I might break it.

My bet is that Canon doesn't include the swivel screen on its pro bodies for several reasons:

1. Pros aren't demanding it.
2. Pros are more likely to use and abuse their gear.  Some, because they don't pay for it and there are risks considered to be reasonable for a given shot.  Others because they often shoot in demanding situations where things happen quickly and there's little time to be as careful about a swivel screen as a casual user would be.
3. Perhaps they think they are doing pros a favor by not adding an appendage to the body that will likely increase the risk of rendering a body useless during a critical shoot.
4. They want to keep their reliability stats for pro bodies as high as possible.  Any added appendage like a swivel screen in the hands of photographers who are most demanding of their gear is inviting breakage that will result in a marked increase in pro-grade bodies delivered to Canon for repair.  Even if it the user's fault, they probably don't want to see this.

[By "pros", I'll include all photographers who demand the most out of their gear and use it in demanding situations.]

But, I won't belittle the swivel screen.  I think it can be a valuable tool.  Still, I'm more confident that my 5D3's will survive a challenging shoot in a crowded event because there is absolutely zero opportunity for the LCD to break off.  Even if I never open it, there's no chance that the screen will inadvertently open or some kid (who may or may not be related to me  ;)) will get grabby and open it at the wrong time.

A 70d has advantages over the big brother that will definitely matter to some: size, weight, swivel screen, touch screen, wifi, right hand-only control, to name those who come to my mind right now...

I forgot about the LCD and wifi features of the 70D -- trade-offs for better weather sealing and a more rugged body of the 7D2.

To be fair, the SL1 also deviates the linear path with its unique benefit of its small size.


The 5D3 was designed as an all-round camera.....
The 7D2 was designed to fit a niche......

What do you think? 
The 5D2 seemed to be a wedding/portrait body only -- a true niche.  The 5D3 upped the ante for weddings, portraits and events plus pulled it out of the niche category by making it a reasonable alternatively for less demanding action.

I wouldn't put the 7D2 in the niche category, it seems to belittle its other talents.  The 7D2 appears to be the new king of the crop bodies for all subject matter that truly excels with action photography.  Plus it is a genuine pro body in build quality.
Just my opinion, but to me the 1DX and the 7D2 hold down the top spots in the Canon Ff and Crop world, while I would put the 5D3 and the 70D as the all round cameras in their categories......
I would agree.  The 7D2 tops the 70D in every category except price, while the 1Dx tops the 5D3 in just about every category except price, weight, and silent shutter.

The progression through the crop bodies is pretty linear with the higher end body improving upon the lower end in just about every feature.  But, when looking at the top four pro-grade bodies -- 7D2, 6D, 5D3, 1Dx -- the distinctions are more detached.  The 1Dx may be king of them all, but the 6D, 7D2, and 5D3 each have unique strengths.  Pending one's subject matter and budget, it would be quite reasonable to augment one's kit with two or more of these bodies to target specific needs.


The 5D3 was designed as an all-round camera.....
The 7D2 was designed to fit a niche......

What do you think? 
The 5D2 seemed to be a wedding/portrait body only -- a true niche.  The 5D3 upped the ante for weddings, portraits and events plus pulled it out of the niche category by making it a reasonable alternatively for less demanding action.

I wouldn't put the 7D2 in the niche category, it seems to belittle its other talents.  The 7D2 appears to be the new king of the crop bodies for all subject matter that truly excels with action photography.  Plus it is a genuine pro body in build quality.

Lenses / Re: What prime should I get?
« on: December 08, 2014, 09:31:48 PM »
With your Canon T3, I'd recommend a 35mm f/2 IS as your first prime.  Its close to the normal focal length for a crop sensor.  It will also be a great lens for video or on a full frame body.  I presume your previous post about a upgrade means you will stay with crop bodies.

I love my 35 f2.0 IS lens.  It's sharp, bright (more than a stop brighter than the 70-200 f2.8L II) and focuses much quicker than the old non-IS version.  At a 56 mm "full frame equivalent", it's a good normal lens for crop.  The f2.0 and IS will give you great low light potential.

If you're looking for something cheaper, I can also recommend the 40 f2.8 pancake.  Also very sharp.

If you want something wider, look at the new 28 f2.8 IS or the new EF-S 24 f2.8 STM.  I can't speak from experience, but these have been favorably compared to the 35 IS and the 40.

As for 50 mm lenses, I'd wait.  Canon is expected to replace the 1.8 and/or the 1.4.  They are old, tired, and soft compared to the new primes that Canon has introduced (at least wide open).  With the recent IS versions of the 28 and 35, I'm hoping for IS 50 f1.8 or faster -- maybe by next spring??  I know, wishful thinking.

The comment about the 5D3 being sharper cropped to a 7D image size is a bit of a lie.

It's no lie.  EF lenses are designed for full frame bodies (film and sensor).  I'm going to butcher this explanation (Neuro does a much better job explaining this and I bet he's thinking, "not this again"), but lenses have limits regarding the degree of sharpness to which they can focus the light.  The larger pixels in a full frame sensor generally do a better job of rendering the edge of a sharp object (such as a fine line in a test chart) from a full frame lens.  Put that line under a microscope and that edge will look fuzzy.  Now, pack lots of smaller pixels close together along this edge and they will capture the "fuzz."  Because the smaller pixels aren't as efficient in capturing the light as the big pixels and this fuzzy line could spill more across the tiny pixels, thus recording a less sharp image.  All of this may vary by lens, with some able to focus better for the small pixels than others.

Okay, that's my stab at explaining the why.  If I butchered it, I warned you.  The thing that's important to me is that increasing "sharpness" requires more than simply packing more pixels into a smaller space.  The lens' ability to focus the light and the pixel's efficiency in capturing the light also play a factor. 

Sometimes pictures can say it better.  Checkout the link to The Digital Picture's comparison tool of the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 1Ds III vs. a 60D.  Those lines are softer on the 60D which has smaller pixels that are more tightly packed together.

As previously mentioned, the bigger sensor allows for higher ISO which allows for faster shutter speeds that can reduce blur and further sharpen an image.

Again, my explanation may have some holes in it, but image sharpness isn't just about the pixel density.  Much of what I shoot is high ISO (1600 and up).  With the 70-200, cropping a 5D3 image will give you a sharper image than a native 7D image.  Go outside in bright light and lower ISO, and this difference is less clear.  Even outside, I get better results cropping my 5D3 image over my native 7D image, but we are nitpicking here.  This is enough to mitigate the 1.6 crop factor for me.  But, it doesn't mean that the 7D can't produce pleasingly sharp images.  It does, especially in bright light.

I would love to see The Digital Picture add the 7D2 to their comparison tool to see if the Mark II version is any sharper than the Mark I.

Both are great options.  I migrated from the 60D to the 7D and now the 5D3.  I shoot a lot of kid sports, but don't plan to get the 7D2.  The 5D3 is an underrated sports body.  If your need isn't heavily dependent upon high speed burst or extended burst in RAW (which can fill a buffer), the 5D3 does a great job.

From a sports perspective, I think of the 5D3 and the 7D2 as little brothers to the 1Dx.  They are different and have their own strengths.  If low light is a bigger concern than burst mode, then the 5D3 is the better choice.  If burst mode and buffer is a bigger concern then the 7D2 is the way to go.

For general use, both should do well.  But, full frame has some distinct benefits.  You will see better low light performance and better color depth.  Granted, the latter is mostly visible when comparing FF to crop directly, otherwise, you may not see it.  Using a 35 2.0 IS, I also find the 5D3 can lock on focus in lower light than my 7D or 60D.  I suspect it will out perform the 7D2 as well, but perhaps not as easily as the older crop bodies.

I find that the 70-200 f2.8L II performs better on FF than on crop.  Images from the lens are sharper on a FF sensor.  You have better control over DOF -- meaning 2.8 on FF offers smaller DOF than on crop.  And, for many occasions, the 70-200 focal range is more usable on FF.

Incidentally, I was concerned about losing the 1.6 crop factor.  In my experience with the 70-200 at 200 mm on both the 7D and the 5D3, a 5D3 image cropped match the 7D image is sharper than the 7D image.  Hopefully, the 7D2 will be sharper than the 7D, but you won't lose any real "reach" from what you have now.

I'd go for the 5D3.  Once you go FF, it's hard to back to crop.

Lenses / Re: Yongnuo EF YN 50mm F/1.8
« on: December 07, 2014, 04:29:54 PM »
I don't see the point.  The EF 50 1.8 and the EF 40 2.8 are already good budget "normal" primes -- and the 40 is particularly sharp.  For those of us who want reliable, powerful, manual flash, at a bargain price, Yongnuo has done a nice job filling this need.  I don't care about ETTL, just consistent power, temp and quick recycle -- should be easy to do for a third-party.  It doesn't matter to me whether Yongnuo did a good job on the ETTL side.  But, I'm far more demanding with glass.

Sports / Re: Basketball
« on: December 06, 2014, 11:00:05 AM »
TexPhoto, I'd love read about he details of your shots -- lens choice, ISO and body, shutter speed for for the controlled blur.  I'm also curious about the overhead setup.

Sports / Re: Winter Baseball
« on: December 06, 2014, 10:49:44 AM »
Love the first baseman's dive for the ball.  Please share some photo details -- lens, ISO, shutter.

Lighting / Re: 72" umbrella... what to look for and what to avoid?
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:01:29 AM »

I decided on these two.  I got two different brands of the same type partly to see if there is a qualitative difference, but also because I HAD to buy one directly from Amazon in order to receive a $25 discount... so.. that works for me.
The 60" sounds big, but I find that they are very manageable and versatile for indoor shoots.  I stick with 40-45" for outdoor unless I have an assistant and there's virtually no wind.  I suspect that you're going to like the 60's.

I'm curious which brand that you like better.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: buying suggestion: a 5D3 or 1Dx?
« on: December 05, 2014, 12:00:08 AM »
I have real issues with using cameras without a viewfinder.  Hoping that somewhere along the way they work on an integrated EVF.  Live view solutions just dont cut it.  I have an iphone for that.

I have an S100 and G16, both good cameras in their element, but I don't like shooting by looking at the back of the camera.  I know, the G16 has a viewfinder...sort of.  But, mirrorless without an EVF that can match that of an SLR is a non-starter for me.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: buying suggestion: a 5D3 or 1Dx?
« on: December 04, 2014, 09:48:08 PM »
I shoot events and sports (mostly middle-school level) and opted for two 5D3 bodies.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love a 1Dx and it may be in future at some point.  But, a 5D3 with a 24-70 f2.8L II and second 5D3 with a 70-200 f2.8L is a killer system for events where candid photography reigns.  It also satisfies my sports needs.

Oh, that silent shutter on the 5D3 is great for church events and special services that the pastor asked me to shoot.  I'm far less conscience about being a distraction.

For me, two bodies is a must and I needed that leap into FF-land.  Next up is rounding out my lens collection, then I'll consider the 1Dx.  If I shot college level sports, maybe football under the lights, the 1Dx might be higher on my G.A.S. list.  But for now, one or two mid-range f1.x primes and the new 100-400 are higher on the list than the 1Dx.  This is a roundabout way of saying that it all depends upon whether your lens needs are fulfilled and whether 2 bodies is important to you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19