December 20, 2014, 08:28:08 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
31
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 24, 2013, 09:29:01 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...

50 1.8

32
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 24, 2013, 09:27:03 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...

50 1.4

33
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 24, 2013, 09:13:06 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...

34
Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: February 23, 2013, 01:00:08 AM »
I'm really enjoying the 6D as a landscape model.  The dynamic range and slightly smoother color have given me a lot of options in shooting.  I've been uploading a series to Flickr all from the 6D.  Here's the one I put up today:


Winter's Splendor #5 - Frosted by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Dude, I want to be you when I grow up.
Or neuro...
Mind you, I may very well be older :)

35
PowerShot / Re: Comparable Camera to the Sony RX100
« on: February 19, 2013, 12:15:28 AM »
I recently played with few compacts (but NOT RX100), so here are my experiences:
- Canon G15 decent picture, great build, a bit chunky, slow to autofocus, slow frame to frame (returned it)
- Panasonic LX7, decent picture, great lens, decent enough autodocus, awful sensor in low light, at least one stop of noise worse than G15, so not a great indoor camera (sold)
- Fuji X10 - decent picture, decent build, decent autofocus, menus a bit complicated, touch chunky. I returned it, not sure why anymore. I think I decided that small sensor just doesn't do it for me, and I ended up with Sony NEX F3 and couple sigma prime lenses as my travel system. Not sure that was right decision. Out of all small sensor camera's the only one I didn't hate was Fuji...

Oh, and Nikon J1: fast AF, cute, easy to use. Doesn't have external controls, but somehow with this one you don't bather to use them. Bad indoor camera with kit lens, but quite alright with 10mm 2.8. Noise performance a bit better than most other compacts, equal to or slightly better than Fuji X10, but quite a bit worse than Sony NEX F3

36
PowerShot / Re: Comparable Camera to the Sony RX100
« on: February 19, 2013, 12:10:54 AM »
I recently played with few compacts (but NOT RX100), so here are my experiences:
- Canon G15 decent picture, great build, a bit chunky, slow to autofocus, slow frame to frame (returned it)
- Panasonic LX7, decent picture, great lens, decent enough autodocus, awful sensor in low light, at least one stop of noise worse than G15, so not a great indoor camera (sold)
- Fuji X10 - decent picture, decent build, decent autofocus, menus a bit complicated, touch chunky. I returned it, not sure why anymore. I think I decided that small sensor just doesn't do it for me, and I ended up with Sony NEX F3 and couple sigma prime lenses as my travel system. Not sure that was right decision. Out of all small sensor camera's the only one I didn't hate was Fuji...

37
Lenses / Re: I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!
« on: February 08, 2013, 12:45:02 PM »
OP, I LOVE your pictures.

And I too lust over photo equipment and spend unreasonable amounts of money. This one is a bit much though, find something cheaper to obsess over :)

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: canon 20d
« on: February 08, 2013, 10:38:16 AM »
I sold 30D for $200 6 months ago - no grip. I kept it for awhile with 5d mkII and never used it, so figured $200 is better than nothing. That said, I didn't have real need for backup body. If you have ANY need, $200 is inexpensive insurance.

39
Could a mod move all the Mikael Canon vs. Nikon stuff to some separate, dedicated thread for that topic? I would really prefer we don't destroy ANOTHER thread with the same old debate. People HAVE been asking for Mikaels original RAW files, but that discussion really doesn't belong in this topic. It belongs elsewere, isolated, in its own little world where the debate that will inevitably rage on won't ruin any other peaceful discussions.
+as many as I am allowed. He is destroying the fun of being here.......
agreed

40
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:52:28 PM »
no Im saying by exposure after 400 iso you have create a head room by 2 stops compare to 100iso
what is so difficult to understand Neuro! = exposure after 400 iso = halving the hitting lights twice compare to 100iso


Hypothetical example: I shoot jpg. I am taking a picture of a forest scene. I am in Av mode, and I set f/8 to obtain the desired DoF, and I chose ISO 400 to get a 1/100 s shutter speed at metered exposure to avoid camera shake, because I foolishly left my tripod at home. Please note, I couldn't care less about what exposure settings would be at ISO 100, 50, or 3200, that's tangential and irrelevant - I choose f/8 and ISO 400 for the reasons I stated.  I take a shot, look at the review image, and see blinking highlight alerts where I want detail of the sun-dappled forest floor. I've read that HTP can preserve my highlights.

If that scenario is confusing, I'll summarize - with HTP off, I set the camera in Av mode, f/8, ISO 400, and the metered exposure gave a 1/100 s shutter speed.

Answer these questions about what happens when I set HTP to Enable:

1) Does my selected aperture of f/8 change?
2) Does the camera-selected shutter speed of 1/100 s change?
3) Does the amount of light hitting the sensor change?

Please, no hand-waving, no 'please read my earlier posts', no repeating what you've posted before, no referring to what may happen at some other ISO setting that I didn't select and don't care about - just answer those three, simple questions with a yes or a no.

You're tough as nails brother ... but I know a lost cause when I see one. All the very best

+1 J.R.

The guy's not looking for a discussion, he's only looking to be right.

+1 BrettS

41
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: January 31, 2013, 10:40:12 PM »
Popcorn anyone ;D ;D ;D


I can tell you people that I have got stringent regulations about my use of   
language from CR, but sometimes I wonder if it not is better to tell  some people here at CR that they have to large costumes and shall not discuss things they not have any knowledge/clue about.
Time 0318 so there will not be any popcorn for me
good night

Only a bombastic, arrogant narcissist would say this in a discussion with neuro. Good luck with your charts.

Agreed. I've been on this forum less than a month, and I can already see that you don't argue with neuro. I'm glad he spends his time around here...

42
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:20:25 AM »
I am thinking of upgrading to the current 7D (yes, tired of waiting for the new one) from a 30D, who have served me well. My limitations are in the high ISO areas, as 30D has a max of 1600 (which is BARELY usable for web). I usually try to keep it at 1000 or lower.

I do take pictures of indoor sports, so that is the reason for the upgrade. I also have an EF-S setup, so FF, though it would be awesome, is out of the question (and budget) for me atm.

I have seen the 7D getting bashed for bad high-ISO performance here, but I also realize that the standards on this forum is VERY high. Since I am not a professional, and probably never going to sell any of these pictures, my view of what is acceptable is somewhat lower.  :)

That said, I do not want to invest a large sum of money into a camera that has bad IQ over ISO 1000, as I already own one of those...

So, the question is: How bad is the 7D on high ISO (1000-6400)? Really?

I had 30D and I used it EXACTLY the SAME way you do, so our tolerance for noise is probably similar, my experience may be similar.

I played for couple of day with t4i which is the same as 7D in terms of noise, and I couldn't quite like ISO 3200. It was probably like ISO1600 on 30D. In the meantime, I had 5D Mark II and used up to 6400 (maybe like ISO800 on 30D), and now 5D Mark III at ISO 10000-12800 is equivalent.

This is all JPEG, no noise manipulation. When cleaning noise, you get a bit better results, but then it depends on the picture, it may soften unacceptably. I returned T4i, and will not look at current crop of crop sensors until next generation.

So yeah, 7D will buy you marginally better ISO, probably 1 stop, and then Mark III at least another 2 on top of it...

43
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 50
« on: January 22, 2013, 10:04:07 PM »
The time 0324 here in Sweden,
if you Neuro tell another person they are wrong
please point at the errors.

I have. Many times  I'd suggest the late hour is affecting your reading comprehension, but since I've told you several times now, at various times, that's not it.

In previous posts, you accused others of not being able to admit when they are wrong, and questioned our ability to read.  Ironic, isn't it...

Hey, I am an ex-eastern European.

Where I used to live, there are no interesting careers, not many opportunities to spend creative energy. Nothing changes ever, everyone is looking for a way to kill time, jobs are being held in perpetuality, and businesses are working on inertia. Wherever you are, whoever you are (unless you're researcher at University, or criminal :) there's no opportunity to get immersed in your work. Instead, one spends eternity in arguments with friends that cannot be won, over drinks, or numberless copes of coffee.

I've been 15 years in Canada, and I've changed a lot. And heck, no matter how much I changed, wife still accuses me that sometimes I argue for the sake of arguing :)

So, I'm guessing:
1. Mikael considers all of you friends :)
2. There is no winning argument with him, because for that he'd need to admit that he lost... :)

44
Lenses / Re: Do I get 24-105
« on: January 13, 2013, 01:01:34 AM »
I have 5d Mark III, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and few primes 40 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.0, and finally 17-40 that I got recently (used) and seem to rarely use. I'm mostly taking pictures indoors, fast moving twins, trying mostly without flash, as I can't bounce effectively when subject is very close (jumping on me).

I use 28-75 quite a bit, always on 2.8, unless one of the primes is on (love shallow depth of field). I find that I often want just a bit more than 75mm to not change position and capture moment.

So I find myself constantly drawn to 24-105, though I rented it when I had 5D mark II, and I wasn't crazy about it, 4.0 felt slow inside of my house. But, I feel like it would be such practical lens because of range, set and forget, that I'm thinking of selling 17-40 and buying 24-105. But then, I can spend few more bucks and get Tamron 24-70 2.8. Currently, in Toronto, it would be less than 50% to jump from craigslist 24-105 to retail Tamron 24-70 2.8.

Am I just going crazy because I want to spend some money? Or is there real benefit to getting one of these 2...

with the 5Dmk3 the absolute best lens for shooting your kids in what you describe is the 40mm f2.8 which you have

its very light and short so easy to shoot one handed even indoors your 5dmk3 is good at high iso to keep shutter at 1/80 or 1/100 sec its vey sharp at f2.8 it focuses accurately and it has a 250mm minimum focus distance so very easy to shoot if the kids are right on top of you.
Any of the zooms with the longer barrels are going to be alot more cumbersome to engage with the kids especially if youa re playing with them as you pretty much have to use both hands with the 5D3 and 40mm is very easy to shoot 1 handed

Yes, you're right, I've already discovered this, 40mm is very useful :) Many wonderful pictures from seemingly unremarkable lens. It gets right in there, easy to shot one handed, easy to aim blindly, and somewhat wide angle helps with aiming errors. Gets less attention from kids, so it buys me another minute or two before they notice and attack camera (gimme, gimme) ...

BTW, I thank everyone for thoughtful answers.

I haven't made any decision, but I'm really blown away with quality of responses and I appreciate differing viewpoints, as they help me reexamine my thinking. I will continue experimenting before making any decision...

45
Lenses / Do I get 24-105
« on: January 11, 2013, 04:04:02 PM »
I have 5d Mark III, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and few primes 40 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.0, and finally 17-40 that I got recently (used) and seem to rarely use. I'm mostly taking pictures indoors, fast moving twins, trying mostly without flash, as I can't bounce effectively when subject is very close (jumping on me).

I use 28-75 quite a bit, always on 2.8, unless one of the primes is on (love shallow depth of field). I find that I often want just a bit more than 75mm to not change position and capture moment.

So I find myself constantly drawn to 24-105, though I rented it when I had 5D mark II, and I wasn't crazy about it, 4.0 felt slow inside of my house. But, I feel like it would be such practical lens because of range, set and forget, that I'm thinking of selling 17-40 and buying 24-105. But then, I can spend few more bucks and get Tamron 24-70 2.8. Currently, in Toronto, it would be less than 50% to jump from craigslist 24-105 to retail Tamron 24-70 2.8.

Am I just going crazy because I want to spend some money? Or is there real benefit to getting one of these 2...


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4