December 18, 2014, 08:48:10 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.

Messages - rs

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 47
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: "Downgrading" for a very specific reason
« on: October 14, 2013, 07:59:44 AM »
What profile was enabled on the camera? These settings get recorded in the raw file, and if you use DPP, unless told otherwise it will obey these settings. Lightroom likes to ignore any in camera settings. 

And if you're using something like LR, you can spend time fine tuning your look and feel, and then get it to apply it to all raw files when imported.

Lenses / Re: Questions on EF 24-70mm II on 5D Mk3 vs EF-S 17-55mm on 7D
« on: October 14, 2013, 01:14:31 AM »
There's a huge advantage. The 17-55 on crop is a closer match to the 24-105 on full frame, but the L lens and FF sensor combo captures more light, has a wider zoom range and is sharper. Think of the 24-70 II and 5D3 combo as an optically better, wider zoom range version of the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 7D.

The same aperture combined with the much improved high ISO of the 5D3 will allow you to get access to action stopping shutter speeds much easier. If shooting moving people, you'd typically want a shutter speed faster than 1/50th of a sec, so IS isn't of much use on that focal length range for that sort of subject anyway.

I have a 5D2 and 40D with both the lenses you mention - not quite the same camera/sensor line up as you, but the 17-55 doesn't get a look in these days.

Or to put it another way - it's optically equal to the 70-200 II. If you notice any image quality difference between your 5D3/70-200 II and your 7D/17-55, expect that same step up when moving to the 5D3/24-70 II.

Hmmm! ... can you repeat the question please!
Sorry, I got a bit side tracked there.

I personally use a 1.4x TC (mk II) to complement my 70-200 II - the IQ is so insignificantly worse than the 300/4 that its not worth splitting them:

The main advantage is whenever I'm shooting a wedding the 70-200 is always with me, and the TC is so small and light I don't have to worry about carrying it around - my back/shoulder pain would feel all the worse if I was carrying a 300/4 with me all day and the situation never arose for me to use it. Plus its cheaper, I retain a zoom when its on, and the IS is two stop better.

Lenses / Re: Haze filter - will it cut though the smog?
« on: October 13, 2013, 02:01:57 PM »
Just to confuse the issue - you may find that a polarising filter will do a better job of cutting through the haze.

Have a look here for an example:

Digital sensors aren't susceptible to UV light like film is, so UV filters are unlikely to have any positive effect.

EOS-M / Re: Settings with EF lenses
« on: October 13, 2013, 09:45:10 AM »
If you're talking about regaining MF while in continuous AF mode (with a USM lens), either method will do. Use whichever of the two you find easiest to switch between. If you don't have the luxury of two custom modes to dedicate to the two settings, I'd personally opt for the switch on the lens.

You missed a chance to save money and get a Crop Camera like the 70D instead of the 300mm f4.
Together with the 70-200mm 2.8 II you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.
A 70-200/2.8 on a crop body is still a 70-200/2.8. However, if you want to look at it in 35mm terms, equivalence isn't just something restricted to focal length - it effects equivalent aperture and ISO too. The only part which needs no equivalence when comparing different sensor sizes is shutter speed.

A 70-200 used on a crop camera at 187.5mm, f2.8, ISO 10000 is the equivalent of 300mm, f4.5, ISO 25600 on FF - equivalent in terms of AoV, DoF and S/N ratio (focal length x 1.6, aperture x 1.6, ISO x 1.6^2). And if you use the same shutter speed on both, the exposure will be the same too.

If the 70-200 on crop was really the direct equivalent of FF 112-320/2.8, who'd ever buy a 1D X and 300/2.8 combo? Or use a m43's camera for a so called 140-400/2.8 - if so, what's the point in the big, heavy, expensive and 'slow' 200-400/4? And why not mount a 70-200/2.8 on a Pentax Q for a 5.64x crop, giving what could erroneously be called a 395-1128/2.8 lens? What were Canon doing with the 1200/5.6 when all they needed to do was make tiny sensors or use tiny film instead?

Canon General / Re: UK lens price increases
« on: October 12, 2013, 09:17:35 AM »
Prices do appear to have gone up just recently. You can keep an eye on prices in the UK with camera price buster -

Pretty much every bank holiday weekend, Park Cameras send an email out with some big savings on gear. These offers don't seem to make it onto sites like CPB. Last time the 8-15 and 16-35 were both around £850 after cashback. Unfortunately I wasn't in a position to buy, but if you don't need anything any time soon, it might be worth signing up to their mailing list and waiting to see what happens with the gear you want over the Christmas/New Year holidays.

Lenses / Re: 100MM 2.8 USM or THE 100MM L for portrait and macro work??
« on: October 10, 2013, 07:03:59 PM »
How about distortion? Had any trouble with that? :) 24-105 is great all-rounder but distortion at 100 complimented by softness is just killing me. I love it most at 35-65(it's straight range).

It is really important for me that the lens is super straight, super sharp and the colors to be right.
It seems ok to me:

Lighting / Re: Long exposure Portrait with second curtain Flash - Advice.
« on: October 06, 2013, 04:38:49 PM »
Its all about either reducing the movement, or proportionally reducing the amount of ambient light on what does move.

1) Get the model to move less for the exposure, reducing any motion blur
2) Get the model to stand in the shadows, so next to no ambient light hits her - then the flash will freeze her better
3) Use first curtain flash, a longer exposure and faster subject movement - 30 secs plus and brisk walking should do it, so next to no ambient light falling on her will affect the exposure.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 70D
« on: October 06, 2013, 03:58:11 PM »
im confused the caon 100 mm macro is not compatible with dual pixel af but the 55-250 and 18-55 kit lenses are while the 100 mm macro is more then2 times faster focus wise?

im sure theres more to this as it makes no sense at all.
It's not the max aperture or focus speed that dictates whether the lenses you've listed are compatible or not (f11 is the cut off for that). It's the generation of AF found in the lens. The EF 100 macro in question is the non USM version, introduced over 23 years ago and discontinued 13 years ago.

Lenses / Re: RE 6D and use of EF lenses
« on: October 02, 2013, 07:30:05 PM »
All- thank you for your replies.

Jim, Im quite certain I bought my Canon 300 (rebel) in 2003 or 2004... I was taking pics of my kids at sports events and the like with it (checking file folders).  It is 70-300mm EF w/ image stabilization, f4-5.6 (gold). 

There's a myriad of lenses to choose from; the one package i was looking at is thru Costco (red / L 24-105 and the 'same telefoto' w/ IS) along w/ a camera bag.  The local big camera retailer here was matching it, but was offering the 'non IS' tele.. (surprise?)....

Never thought that a good size spend on cameras would be similar to buying a car!
The 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM was released in the latter half of 2005, 2 years after the 300D was released. 6 months prior to the lenses introduction, the 300D was discontinued. Are you sure it's not a 75-300 you've currently got?

What you've already got is largely irrelevant - if you're after quality telephoto reach for a modest sum, I'd recommend against using a 6D with a budget xx-300 zoom. The results will be underwhelming as the lens will be soft, and to make matters even worse, you'll be cropping loads.

For lake based water sports, you either need a motorboat to get up close (still around the 70-200 range), or serious reach.

If a motorboat is practical (are the coaches/regatta organisers using one already?), you'll get the best shots. IS is essential out on the water, even at high shutter speeds - if you can stretch to it, get a 70-200/4 IS, but if you can really get close without giving off too much wash, the 24-105 might just do it. Moving with the boats shouldn't tax the AF too much, so a 6D is good.

If a motorboat is impossible, quality reach is everything. The already mentioned 70-300L is worth every penny. Combine that with a good crop camera (7D or 70D) for an effective 480mm field of view, and it might just about be telephoto enough and sharp enough to give you something meaningful to crop into in post.

The noise is different. Unlike high ISO's, noise from long exposures is much more predictable, and easy to mostly remove with subtraction. Take a read about long exposure noise reduction, found on page 4 of this article:

Lenses / Re: Do you usually shoot your lenses wide open?
« on: September 30, 2013, 03:28:21 PM »
With crop I tended to shoot mostly wide open, but since moving to FF I've had to readjust due to the narrower DoF at the same aperture - now I often stop down, sometimes by quite a bit when the situation calls for it. The great thing with the mk II zooms is I get quite a narrow DoF with no noticeable loss of sharpness when shooting wide open. It's nice to have that performance in reserve for when the time is right, without overdoing it on every shot.

However, most people don't buy a fast prime such an 85L to use it at f8. A lens like that really is predominantly for those special moments where a razor thin DoF is desired. The Canon 50/1.4 is borderline due to its low cost, weight and size - so I could see some people buying it for its compactness rather than big aperture. I rarely shoot my somewhat large and otherwise redundant (with a 24-70 II in my kit bag) Sigma 50/1.4 at anything but 1.4.

EOS Bodies / Re: Brand New EOS 70D has a lot of specks on sensor
« on: September 29, 2013, 09:52:36 AM »
I read the title of this thread, and thought Canon was trying to go one up on Nikon's D600  ;D

I'm relieved to see its nothing more than minor specks of dust at f36 - something which could easily happen from fitting a lens once or twice, or pumping the zoom in/out a couple of times. Try shooting at f20 or below, and there should be no issue. However, if you are planning on using an MP-E 65, get yourself a sensor cleaning kit and plenty of practice using a spot removal tool in PP - no matter what your camera is.

I had a speck of dust appear on my iPhone 5 sensor, occupying a surprisingly large portion of the frame - and no options to change aperture size or clean the sensor with that lens ??? Luckily Apple replaced the whole phone because of it just before the 12 month warranty expired.

EOS Bodies / Re: 3.5\
« on: September 28, 2013, 08:04:13 PM »
Even a top end camera which is optimised for speed of use without taking your eye away from the viewfinder can benefit from a touchscreen in certain situations - as long as it compliments the buttons, not replace them.

Certain features such as zooming in or scrolling around an image, or selecting the focus area in live view can be much quicker with a touch screen than button based systems - presuming it's warm enough to not wear gloves.

If it's implemented well, a touch screen can be an asset to the 1 series.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 47