August 20, 2014, 09:03:36 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 - babiesphotos

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
16

I was flummoxed when I heard that this thing is APS-C only.  Why?!  If this is a premium lens aimed at serious shooters, why go crop?  This is not a screaming need for the relatively few APS-C guys who spend big money on glass (i.e. birders, sports guys), so I can't make heads or tails of this.

Why not push for (idk) a 24-50 F/2 for the FF guys?  That would likely have a larger interest level.

- A
If I'm not mistaken, this has to do with technical & feasibility issues. Actual lens diameter for crop can be smaller than for ff bodies, thus making it easier to produce f/1.8. Or am I completely wrong right now?

You're not wrong, but for those saying this is no big deal, I disagree.  This is something that has not been done before for either crop or FF (an f/1.8 zoom), so to dismiss it outright is absurd.  Yes, developing for full frame is more challenging, but this is clearly a step in the right direction and will put more pressure on Canon.  As a consumer, I see that as a good thing

Agreed that it's a big deal, as it's not been done before. But I don't think it makes it any more likely for full frame equivalent lens to be made, as that one would have to be larger.
 
Value is in closing the gap between APS-C and full frame, and if you're Nikon shooter, you have 27-52.5 f2.7 FF equivalent, for serious, but not FF money.

And as to why Sigma did this - I think they were looking for a gap where they can play by themselves for awhile. Crop sensor shooters looking for best/fastest glass they can get (in normal range) is probably not a huge market segment, but they own it now.  And then there is a 'hallo' effect of 1.8, increasing value of their lineup. Smart play...

17

Here's the data you want, then:

Primes:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

     Basic finding:  24L II @ F/2.8 > 28 IS @ 2.8 (just barely) > 24 IS @ 2.8 
     To be fair, all of these are considerably sharper compared to the old flagship 24-70L I.

Zooms:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
Also:      http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

    Basic finding:  @24mm, the new 24-70L II truly does stack up against Canon's primes, beating the 24L II @ 2.8
    in center and border but just barely losing in the corners.  But it's very expensive, and despite improvements
    in weight, it's still not a tiny thing to carry around.

Hope that helps.  I have to make the statement that resolution is but one of a great many variables in buying a lens, but I would imagine that you know that given your years of shooting.  I love the new IS primes as they are small and light, inconspicuous / unassuming (great for street), use a very common filter diameter, are internal focusing, and have the latest focusing tech  -- all being upsides in my book.

- A


+1 on the first link. Short quote OP may find useful:

"Like most newly designed lenses, the strength of these new versions appears to be in the corners. You can tell by the average resolution numbers that the new lenses are doing better in the edges and corners than the older ones (I consider the Canon 24mm f/1.4 a new lens). One of the ways they accomplished that, though, appears to be by allowing more distortion (correcting distortion and maintaining sharpness are sometimes a trade-off in wide-angle lens design). The table below shows the amount of barrel distortion in several lenses.

Barrel Distortion   Percentage
Canon 24mm f/1.4L II   1.00%
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L @ 24mm   0.75%
Canon 28mm f/1.8   1.50%
Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM   2.10%
Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS USM   1.55%"

 

18
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: April 02, 2013, 08:29:25 PM »
So, where does the 6D fall in? A market where users who NEED Wifi Controls and GPS built in camera. (Considering Eye-fi cards are a good compromise but don't allow control)

A market for users who want a $1600 camera, not a $2400 camera.


More like a market for a re-badged 1200$ 5d2 performing camera that costs 2000$.  :P

I had all three: 5d mk ii, mk iii and 6D
Difference btw. mk III and 6D is lesser than difference between 6D and mk II, for my type of use.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: April 02, 2013, 08:25:24 PM »
As I said in my post, I needed to buy a 24-105.  It's a matter of perspective, but in my situation it was another $1000 to add to the cost if I was to buy new.

24-105L's are dime a dozen now. Many people are stripping the kit lenses out and selling them second hand for 750-850$ brand new in box. Even the 2350$ kit from amazon, when selling the 24-105L for the market price, at best its 1600$ for the body, Minus the effort and time to sell the kit lens.

While If you purchase the 5D3, sure its a few more dollars but your getting alot more camera for not alot more monies. If you really want value per $$$, a used 5D2 is unbeatable. So, where does the 6D fall in? A market where users who NEED Wifi Controls and GPS built in camera. (Considering Eye-fi cards are a good compromise but don't allow control)

You situation also assumes that the person must buy a kit. What if they don't want the kit lens?  :P

I'm not knocking any 6D users, I just feel canon didn't do it justice.

I sold my 24-105 brand new $900

20
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: April 02, 2013, 12:30:28 PM »
babiesphotos canada, why do you need shallow DOF when shooting lively toddlers from up close?  That's just impossible to nail sharp focus on the eyes very often.  I would close down to at least f/3.5 or something, when shooting near them.  Pull back to 7 feet or so and then maybe try wide open, then crop later?

Why? Well, at first I didn't know better, then, I LOVE shallow DOF look when I nail the focus, and finally, we have twins, so I'm often outnumbered, and my kids love camera (ok, boy does), and they came, reach for the camera, look at the pictures etc. Honestly, unless kids play with their mom, I can't keep the distance. Camera trumps any other toy, so they'll abandon whatever they were doing to be 'active participants'. I find that 40 2.8 works quite well in these circumstances.

And finally, I love 6D. As I said elsewhere, I sold 5D MKIII and bought 6D, so money had influence on my decision, but if I were silly rich and truly disinterested in monetary questions, I STILL MAY CHOOSE 6D over 5D Mk III, as long as it's not "one camera until the rest of your life". No, it's not better, but it's close enough for my needs, and it's lighter enough that it makes difference, and it fits better in my hand (I'm 5-7, so no giant for sure). My hand hurts less after wielding 24-70 for couple hours. And there is also GPS and WiFi, which I didn't care for initially, but I find them really interesting now.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: April 01, 2013, 06:00:39 PM »
Another 6D convert here. It's camera better than specs showcase it.

I had 5d Mk III, sold it and replaced with 6D. Saved $1000, and have lost a touch in auto-focus capability.

I used to get 6-6.5 good frames out of 10 with Mk III, now I get 5 with 6D. This is trying to capture very lively toddlers from close distance and shallow DOF. If I move further, results improve a lot with both cameras...

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Experiences with the 6D
« on: March 11, 2013, 10:20:40 AM »
I had 5D Mark II, sold, bought 5D Mark III, sold, bought 6D. Reasons are not important, but here are conclusions:

- 6D is quite a bit better than 5D Mark II in low light. Everyone says it's a touch better than 5D Mark III, I haven't confirmed that yet, but it's no worse.
- AF tracking is somewhere between mk II and mk III. I don't do sports, or wildlife, but chase toddlers, and my percentage of success is better than mk II, and maybe a bit worse than mk III. Kids seem to be so unpredictable at close focusing distance that I couldn't wring out much better results with mk III. Having said that, I shoot ONLY wide open, and with ridiculous depth of field (1.4 etc...), so I'm making it hard on camera and myself.
- AF accuracy is better than mk II. I _think_ it's not as good as mk III on outer points, but on central point, it's exactly the same thing, if not better. I shot mostly inside, so this tilts playing field in 6D favor, as you're probably aware.
- I don't mind 4.5(6D) frames vs 6(mk III), but again I'm not into sports. Something I'm missing is that mk III has hi-speed  mod and 3frames/s mode, and 6D has only one. At 4.5 frames it's a touch hard to fire only one shot, often I fire 2 when I didn't want to. Quiet mode drops it to 3 frames in both cameras, but shutter lag is longer, which I avoid with active toddlers.
- Sync speed 1/180 vs 1/200 is red hearing. 1/180 is either enough or it's not, and if itsn't, you go into HSS mode in both cameras.
- I actually prefer 6D handling. It's very solid, nice and NOT small, but lighter than mk III. I didn't mind mk III, but when lugging some of the heavier lenses around house for awhile, I does get a bit hard on the hand, and I found I appreciate those 200g less. It's nothing decisive, just a bit of a comfort.
- I was always writing all files on both cards in mk III, can't do that in 6D, but since I'm not making money with my camera, I can live with it.
- I LOVE EOS remote app. I attach pic of my 18-moth old triggering the shutter while I'm holding camera to take a picture. Not sure it will be truly usefull, but it's cool

23
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Initial impression after using 6D
« on: March 07, 2013, 06:17:48 PM »
Well it came yesterday and as a whole "wow" what a step up from a rebel.  The feel, the size is just about perfect. 

I only had the cash for the body but plan on getting glass in the next few months here.  With that being said I was using the Nifty Fifty.   

Even with all lights on my 450D couldn't take a picture worth keeping without the hotshoe flash.  THIS CAN!!! I was stunned with auto ISO, as it was only Day 1 I left it in jpg and then AV and TV mostly. 

Focus, was slow at times and seemed to search, I'm not sure if this was a lens or body issue or  maybe even user.  I know this isn't a sports or action cam but its forced into that roll as I have a 1.5 year old running around. 

so the jury is till out on the focus... not sure if I was expecting more based on the -3EV rating. 

WIFI was very cool, didn't really take any pics with it, but did transfer images straight to my iPhone 5 and post on Facebook or text them out to family.   Really easy.

Overall coming from the 450D and only fooling around for a few hours still learning this camera, I am impressed!!  I will try to get user pictures up in the near future. 

(i think I might also see how I can do AFMA at home)

About focus: I also have 1.5 year old(s), twins. My experience is that it's hard catching them.

I just sold 5d Mk III because I was frustrated on how many shots were OOF. I mean I get plenty of good ones, but still many OOF.

Bought 6D and for all intents and purposes my batting percentage is almost the same. Pocketed $1000 towards 24-70 (Tamron or LII, need to figure it out).

Good lens and USM helps. 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 are worst offenders in terms of OOF on moving toddlers. 135L lots better, 40 pancake surprisingly good (because of short focus distance), even tamron 28-75 does ok. Don't remember how 85 1.8 does.

Rented 35 1.4 and 24-70 L II, both were better than average.

24
Canon General / Re: What am I doing wrong???
« on: February 26, 2013, 04:43:02 PM »
The 5d3 is capable of shooting thin dof and moving kids. The problem might be that it is on the edge of what's impossible AND you have to struggle with the not-canon's-best AF of the 50mm f1.4.

Try the same settings outside and see if more light helps, I'm sure it will.

What you should try, since you say when the kids stop suddenly and it's "Still" oof, that is my experience to, if your AF is set up to respond to fast erratic action, when the subject stops the AF is still in top gear wanting to hit action.

First off, get your AF-start off the shutterbutton and onto the AF-ON button on the back, that way you can, for example, shoot off a few shots of a sequence, track away and shoot off a few more without the AF having to find your subject every time you push and release the shutter.

Then, and this I'm not 100% sure you can do on the 5d3, but I think you can; Select the AE lock button to recall settings and set those settings to fast action with expansion points, case 6 etc. And the AF-ON button to engage "normal" case 1 AF with single point. That way you can just move your thumb 5mm and change the behaviour of the camera COMPLETELY and get all shots focused, even if your kid runs and jumps or suddenly sits down having a sip of his juicebox. Trust me, I know one set up doesn't work with kids, you need to take advantage of EVERYTHING the 5d3 offers, and again, practice, practice, practice.

Huge thanks!

25
Canon General / Re: What am I doing wrong???
« on: February 26, 2013, 04:28:53 PM »
first, third picture is not that sharp to my taste.  taking a look at the third picture, it seems like that you focused and re-composed on that image?  as if you did, please quit doing that with apeture of 1.4 unless you are standing far away from subject.

Hey, I'm grateful for offer of help, but kinda not liking that you made assumption these are pictures I care about (otherwise, why critique?). I guess my ego is too big, eh? :). And I do know that f4 or f5.6 is miles easier to work with than f1.4.

These pics are just a showcase of a problem. Picture 3 HAS a plane of sharp focus, picture 2 doesn't! Where did the focus go? What caused smudginess? Why are they not ALL like attached one? That's what I'm wondering about.

Some of my pictures I like, not necessarily all sharp :) are at babiesphotos.ca

26
Canon General / Re: What am I doing wrong???
« on: February 26, 2013, 02:08:20 PM »
Thanks for answer everyone!

There were couple of useful advices/suggestions. Like one with trying case 6 (I used case 4 until now), and that maybe delay in firing after half press is possibly responsible, and suggestion to go for really high shutter speed, use M mode and auto-ISO, also comments on the closer focusing distance are spot on, most of the problems are at the close focusing distance. Comments on 50 1.4 being hit and miss also accurate, seems to be one of the worst offenders I have, though I can make any lens miss, easy...

Most of other things I tried and knew. Summary of answers:
- I don't think camera is a lemon, it must be the owner :), as I had the same situation with 5d mkii
- I never let camera choose focus points. I mostly use one point, central point most of the time. I use servo when kids are on the move, or if I don't need to recompose at all. MY DOF button is configured to switch mode while being pressed, so I liberally move btw. one shot and servo. Obviously, I'm not quite a beginner, and still so many misses.
- I aim to place my chosen point on the eyeball, absolutely ALWAYS.
- I did AFMA some of my lenses, though it's possible I didn't do it well
- I'll take exception with analysis that elbow is sharp on the first picture. When I look at 100%, I don't see real focus anywhere. No clean fiber. Not that 100% matters, I was just trying to figure out what happened.
- I do get quite a few keepers, and my percentage of good shots is maybe 50% for (rental) 24-70L II to 20-30% for 50 1.4. Maybe that's to be expected? But where I'm getting annoyed is that many times kids do stop for a second and still many of those pictures are to me inexplicably smudged.

Look, couple more examples, any theories are welcome:
1 - just slightly annoyingly unsharp.
2 - There is nothing truly in focus. Yeah, it looks like sweather is in focus, but not true. Check third picture to see how sharp it looks like. Much better, right, so it makes me think it's not only OOF issue, but camera shake?
3 - this one is sharp
Perhaps I should have chosen something more obvious, but this is 24-70 II, pinnacle of lenses right now, and it does seem better, i.e. keeper percentage is higher, and unsharp pictures are less unsharp. (English is my second langauge, so please no jokes :)

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 35mm 1.4
« on: February 26, 2013, 01:27:12 PM »
Here are few pics, all made with 35 1.4. I rented it, with intent to buy, but I ended up cropping many, so 35 is a bit too wide for me. I picked few uncropped, as examples, so these are not particularly good ones (not the worst either), but they showcase something:
first - 1.4 bokeh
second - 2.0 bokeh
third - example of framing that I eventually cropped

28
Canon General / What am I doing wrong???
« on: February 25, 2013, 02:18:28 AM »
I get good pictures. But my percentage of unsharp ones is horrific. With all lenses.

I like shooting wide open, and I'm shooting active toddlers, so I know it's not easy. But still, I have 5D mark III, I am aware of shallow DOF, I am aware of field curvature, I am aware that shooting 1.8 on 1.4 lens may lead to focus issue (can't remember the term). Still, I don't get what am I doing wrong? Are kids that quick that 1/160 is so often smudged? I tried 1/500 and it did help some, but not completely. Do I shake the camera when firing? Any ideas?

Few example, 2 bad ones and one ok (all 1/160 50 1.4@1.4). Third shot is ok and is fired the same second when second shot (bad one) was fired... Quite often, it seems to me like there is nothing in focus, so I started thinking I'm shaking the camera, but when 1/500 didn't solve it, I got lost...

Help...

29
So the 50mm 1.2, while wide open isnt sharp? Because I'd like to have a very sharp focus area with lots of depth behind/bokeh.

The 85mm is substantially more in cost, so I'm at a loss of what to.

I plan on upgrading to a 5D Mark 3 within a few months...will this change the performance of the 50mm 1.2?

None of the 1.2 are great for street photography. DOF is so shallow that you rarely want that effect on the street. 1.2 is great for portraits, and for that 50 is sharp enough, and 85 is just plain sharp, BUT I don't think you should be buying any 1.2 until you have 50 1.4, play with it and decide you want more. Easy to buy, easy to sell, not gonna lose much money... similarly 85 1.8 AF is much faster than 85 1.2, you may like it for candids...

30
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 24, 2013, 09:34:53 PM »
New parent here, 18 months old twins.

I've upgraded bodies, bought number of lenses, rented bunch, so here is my take:

Zooms are easier to use, but more ordinary. I'd look Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC), or even 28-75 2.8. Second one is meant for full frame, so I have it on Canon full frame, but also on Sony crop, and love it crop too, They're very good, not spectacular, but great use of $400-$500 for new, or about $350-$400 used

Primes are more limiting, but keepers you get with these will be something to behold. So if you're just starting, I'd suggest primes, 35,50 and 85 is what's practical on crop body. You have 40, so I'd say get 50 1.8 if you want to save a bit ($100), or 50 1.4 if you feel like spending ($350), and then get 85 1.8 ($350). You don't lose much with 50 1.8 vs 1.4, and you can spend that money on 85 1.8, so I'd start with 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.

85 1.8 is most limiting and hard to work indoors, but will give you some stunning pictures.

Rent 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, they're something else, but don't buy unless you're rich, or you catch bug. Rental in USA lensrental.com, in Canada Vistek and Headshots in major cities...

Some samples of my pics at http://babiesphotos.ca/ though this is from few different cameras...


Tamron 28-75 2.8

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4