Messages

376

Software & Accessories / Re: Starting to work with RAW. Help?

« on: January 24, 2013, 09:05:30 PM »

Aperture is cheaper and probably a more logical progression from iphoto, however lightroom is more fully featured and adobe are more on the ball at keeping their raw codecs fresh (important if you are buying a new camera) there is a third way, which is photoshop elements.

If you are happy to do the heavy lifting as raw and save as jpeg then elements is great value.

377

United Kingdom & Ireland / Selling used gear UK

« on: January 24, 2013, 11:50:27 AM »

Had it with a popular auction site.

Noticed a known scammer had bid on a lens and managed to cancel before sending lens or losing money, feedback rating decimated however and the popular auction site staff won't rescind, despite being presented with lots of evidence of scamming.

I know from my days of retail that I can expect no more than 50% of sellable value as a trade in, so can I ask, has any UK user had any success selling gear elsewhere.

By UK I mean United Kingdom.  Only answers from UK users, in the UK, who have sold stuff in the UK.

Thanks!

378

Technical Support / Re: Very soft audio w external mike of EOD 5D3

« on: January 24, 2013, 09:22:14 AM »

But if the Tascam is where the sound engineers are sitting it will be very far from the camera. A cable between the Tascam and the camera would be too long I'm afraid, there would be too much loss.

It should be a nice hot line level out the back of a mixer, and XLR cable runs are pretty resistance to interference.

An ideal would be a mixer feed of the singers into one channel of the tascam, and your sony mic placed in a neutral position amongst your orchestra into the second channel.  Gives you clean feeds and the ability to post mix relative levels.  You'll have the camera audio to overdub and soften out some of the stringency, add audience reaction etc.

As far as I know with all the EOS cameras (except the dedicated video C - line) the audio is set prior to recording.  I use a beachtek into my camera as this adds on the fly attenuation, I set the camera level with the channels wide open and can then attenuate as required.  Adding level in post is easy enough so during a take my main concern is avoiding clipping.

379

Lenses / Re: What nd filter density (combinations) do you use?

« on: January 24, 2013, 08:00:08 AM »

I have the B+W ND1000 (3.0).

I don't know how strongly I'd recommend it as it is a pain to use, it's screw in, perhaps I would have been better with a square filter system and a lee big stopper.

Dark VF, dark live view. Very very long exposures possible, but I find that anything beyond a minute is progressivly less effective in anycase.

If I were buying again I might opt for an ND16 and an ND500 or similar.

Beware stacking extreme ND filters, as there can be severe colour casts.

380

Lighting / Re: Fastest Sync Speed

« on: January 24, 2013, 05:55:53 AM »

Yup, thats why I suggested it! 

381

Lighting / Re: Fastest Sync Speed

« on: January 24, 2013, 04:57:57 AM »

A nikon D40?

382

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have a NEX body? Make your EF lenses sharper and faster! - apparantly

« on: January 23, 2013, 11:38:03 AM »

Are they launching an MFT version?  Interesting idea, I guess it's essentially a MFT image circle for that sensor anyway, my reservations would be the lack of decent MFT video lenses (no fast zooms for example) it'll be funny seeing a BMD camera with all the various silliness that MFT users adapt to their cameras...

383

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?

« on: January 23, 2013, 11:34:11 AM »

No offence to Pardus, this excellent image shows the detail and saturation possible even at high iso's with a 7D, I would say that set up for RAW and with the slightest of post-processing a lot of the background noise (unobtrusive in this JPEG, but there in the shadows) could be easily removed.

I think, as this and the earlier images posted show, any fears of poor image quality are largely ill founded.

I would augment my earlier comments by saying that good glass is important (what lenses do you have just now? the 85 f1.8 and 100mm f2 make brilliant short sports lenses on the 7D) and camera set up is important (tweak the AF, shoot RAW)

The latest cameras in the best of hands are better, but for the money, in fact at any price, the 7D can be a formiddable sports camera.

384

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Hello...Anyone else from the UK?

« on: January 23, 2013, 11:10:54 AM »

His work is beautiful, along with Joe Cornish probably my two favourite contemporary landscapers, but once they nail a location I don't see the point even trying.

I use the photographers ephemeris for planning my shoots, occasionally tide tables, usually google maps and often flickr, just to see who has went before me has approached it, to see if I can find a new way.

385

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I love big gear

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:42:53 AM »

Lightweights.

Add a Vinten ProTouch5, a mic stand and sound gear into the mix, along with a redhead kit, and then you are travelling big.

386

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:40:45 AM »

@sandymandy

but why would somebody not want to go FF?

Performance for cost (6D and 5D2 are very different cameras to the 7D)
Cost alone
They already have a range of EF-s or DC lenses
They find the effective increase in reach useful

387

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Hello...Anyone else from the UK?

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:23:31 AM »

@insanitybeard

Do you do much in the way of Landscape photography? Scotland has a special place in my heart for it's amazing scenery- I have particular fondness for the rugged desolate beauty of Skye and the far North-West- Torridon, Sutherland etc... Bleak as you can get in stormy weather, out of this world on a (maybe rare!) sunny day, and magical in any weather! (rose tinted specs maybe, but still an amazing place!) 

Not as much as I should, or even stills these days in general, mainly using cameras for video just now.

There are some brilliant locations on the west coast, but I try to avoid them as theres so many folk doing the same classic locations but at a better standard than me, Colin Prior has a lot to answer for, I swear there's a tripod footprint worn into the bedrock at Buachaille Etive Mor and the Old Man of Storr.

I do stuff mainly along the clyde coast and islands, as they are generally ignored by everybody bar locals.

388

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:13:45 AM »

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. 

To be fair, some of the standards on this forum aren't that high.  Don't confuse who has spent the most or posts most frequently or whatever with ability.

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...

I shoot stills with my 7D at 1600 comfortably and 3200 at a push.  The key is in shooting RAW and being subtle with the sharpening and noise reduction.  I find applying any NR first works best, then applying as little sharpening as possible, LUMA NR for lower ISO images where required, slight luma and heavier CHROMA NR for higher ISO.

The 7D is mostly maligned by folk who never bothered to set up the AF or cannot work RAW properly.  One or two of the dissenters might have got a duff cam, but in my experience for the most part folk just bought a camera that was designed for personal set up, and never bothered setting it up.

The kind of folk, who in the first part of my answer, think that buying a more sophisticated camera makes you a better photographer.

If you compare photos of resolution charts with those from a 5D3 or 1DX then the 7D isn't as good.  Handy for those who shoot resolution charts and can afford a 5D3 or 1DX.  Which many folks can't.

Within your budget, with your lenses and for your application the 7D is the camera to go for.  Just be prepared to crack the manual.  It'll really sing if you add a fast aperture USM lens (something like an 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2.0)
 

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

If you are confident using RAW you'll get great images at 1600, good images at 3200, and 6400 is probably more akin to what your current camera is giving you.

Bear in mind that super-high ISO is a relatively recent trend.  I remember the noise from Fuji 1600 print film, to the point where I'd usually restrict myself to 800 or lower.  So it's changed days.

The only arguement I can think of to get you to hold off from buying a 7D just now is that there is a new model pending, you might be in line for a bargain on the 7D if you can wait a while.

In the meantime, get to grips with RAW, as it makes the absolute best of the 7Ds images.

389

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Hello...Anyone else from the UK?

« on: January 23, 2013, 05:00:11 AM »

A Scot from Kilmarnock ('The Scheme' from the TV show, to be precise) now living in Glasgow, in a flat over-looking the Clyde.

390

Street & City / Re: Your best street shots of any kind.

« on: January 22, 2013, 11:58:17 AM »

@rpt

Scapes? You talk about land and sea scapes! Whiskey man! Whiskey!

If you go to Islay there is an abundance of all three.  Work flew me over a couple of years ago, poisoned chalice in a way - beautiful place, but no real time to enjoy the views or the uisge beatha.  Must try and get back.

And if it's Scotch then its 'Whisky'.