Messages

31

Technical Support / Re: Event Shooting: Camera Picture Style Setting

« on: October 10, 2012, 08:50:20 AM »

@rpt.... as I have written, I know RAW as I always shoot RAW (like you). what I do not know is JPEG. About the mixed lighting part, yes there will be horrible lighting. There will be some fluorescent and may be some halogen type lights as well (not sure). Most of that I plan to eliminate by flash. For the distant crowd photos where I cannot use flash that effectively, I am not that much concerned with lighting or color accuracy. As long as humans look like humans, it will do. I need to know about what should I put as value for sharpness setting, contrast setting etc.

@Act444.... No I am not going to shoot both. That basically defeats the purpose of shooting in JPEG. If I have the RAWs I will tweak them anyways, so I do not want to have the RAWs. I should not need any significant fixing, if any photo needs significant fixing that goes out of the window, period. I am not going to shoot both also because then I can cram zillions of photos in a single card.

32

Technical Support / Re: Event Shooting: Camera Picture Style Setting

« on: October 09, 2012, 10:19:18 PM »

I would use standard picture style, depending on the type of event. Portrait would end up being kinda soft and warmer than you may like. Canon's have trouble getting indoor light temperature right, so this may be a bigger concern. Indoor light is often too warm looking on a canon in Jpeg. So I would set the temperature to tungston right off and give it a looksee. Matching your flash might be important. I would proably Gel my flash's to match the indoor color temp. Jpeg isnt too bad. The in-camera rendering of noise and colors is pretty impressive.

Thanks for reminding the gelling-the-flash part. Yes that will be important. And yes, I will definitely do some test WB shots before the crowd gathers.

33

Technical Support / Re: Event Shooting: Camera Picture Style Setting

« on: October 09, 2012, 10:17:45 PM »

Definitely, definitely, definitely, picture style neutral.  According to Canon, PS neutral is best for rendering accurate colors under indoor and tough light. Standard would most likely render skin tones too red and suffers from color distortion.  Also make sure to shoot raw, because canon noise reduction setting destroys colors and raw gives you the ability to shift color temperatures.

Thank you for the suggestion, but, I do not want to shoot in raw (reason is explained in my original post - do not want to put any time in post processing). If I shoot in RAW (which I otherwise always do) I wouldn't need to use the picture styles. I want JPEG  (which I have hardly ever used), that is why I asked the question.

34

Technical Support / Event Shooting: Camera Picture Style Setting

« on: October 09, 2012, 07:53:35 PM »

Hello All,

I have to shoot a group event next week. It will be organized completely indoors. And it is unpaid (In any case I am not a pro photographer). I am the sole member of the group who has some enthusiasm in photography (read who has two cameras and a couple of flashes), so the duty has fallen upon me. It is not a lifetime event for anyone (that is it is not a wedding, or engagement or anything as such).

I do not want to spend a lot of time on post processing (in fact it will be best if I do not have to spend any) in front of my computer. So I am planning to take the photos in Large/Fine JPEG format (will enable me to take a lot of "snaps" with my current cards). Unfortunately, I have never done this - that is never taken photos in JPEG format. Even before I bought my first (digital) camera, I was reading about photography and so the first photo taken by me with my first camera was a in RAW format.

I am looking for your help in deciding which picture style should I choose to shoot? Standard or Portrait or Landscape or Neutral or Faithful? If I go for User Defined styles then what should I choose as values of the four things that we can choose inside each of the photo styles. I shall use a 40D and a 50D (with a 12-24 Tokina, and an old EF 22-55mm Canon lens, may be a a few with 50mm 1.8 II).

Thank you for your time and help.

35

Lenses / Re: Macro extension tubes

« on: October 05, 2012, 12:28:56 AM »

Thanks for the advice and comments guys...  think i'll the Kenko ones as I can actually buy them here in India!

reversing my nifty-fifty is great 2 lenses for 100€, both getting good results! no brainer for anyone (like me) who wanted to give macro a bash!

Just for my curiosity. How much does the Kenko tubes cost in Indian Rs. (I am Indian, but right now in USA for studies, have never bought any camera equipment in India, so just want to know). If you want you can send me a personal message.

36

Lenses / Re: Macro extension tubes

« on: October 04, 2012, 03:04:23 AM »

Anyone tried reversing a 100 macro?

I have not. But will it work? Because the wider the lens the more the magnification - I think basically the wider angle of view now works in reverse. The 100 macro should not be that great a macro lens (as it is straight on) when reversed. But this is all my conjecture.

37

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 70-200 OS

« on: October 04, 2012, 03:00:39 AM »

Looks like if I can get hold of a good copy of Sigma 70-200 OS, it will pretty wonderful. But have to cross the hurdle called Sigma QC....

38

Lenses / Re: Macro extension tubes

« on: October 03, 2012, 02:32:30 PM »

Can you tell a noob what a "reversed nifty fifty" is??

It's when you mount a lens, usually a normal prime, 'backwards' (front element towards camera) using a reversing adapter ring.  It cam be mounted directly to the body, or to the front filter threads of another lens, depending on the adapter type.  A reversed lens is one of the many ways of shooting macro without a true macro lens.

OH wow.....that's incredibly interesting!!!

Thank you.....I'll have to look into this.  Can this be done with most any lens? What lenses are your best candidates for this....?

C

As Neuro said, it is mounting the lens "fron element towards camera". For this you will need a "##mm reverse mounting ring" (do an amazon search to see what those look like). The ## stands for the front filter thread size of your lens. So for example the nifty fifty you will need "52mm reverse mounting ring for canon/EOS/EF". These are just black anodized metal rings - one side of which looks like the rear side mount of the lens and this mounts on the camera, the other side has the 52mm (or 55mm or 58mm or whatever mm) thread where you screw the lens. So first you screw on the ring on the lens as if it was a filter and then mount this "filter" on the camera using the mounting side of the ring. This is just one way for doing Macro photography with what you have without spending too much on a true macro lens. But this technique makes the use of a tripod almost mandatory. On top of that since you loose all AF capability (unless you chip the reverse mounting ring with third party AF confirmation chip, has anyone tried this?) you will probably need something like a "macro focusing rail" (again do a google or amazon search) for achieving good focus.

The other way of doing macro (without macro lens) is using extension tubes. These are just metal/plastic tubes that mount the lens away from the image plane and achieve macro images. I prefer metal tubes. No plastic tubes. Again as Neuro said (here and in some other posts) "kenko air" is as valuable as "canon air". So any extension tube (for me as long as they are metal) works. These tubes generally come in a set of three pieces of different lengths, by using different combinations of these you can achieve different tube length and so different magnifications. You mount the tube on the camera and then mount the lens at the end of the tube. Here you can either mount the lens in the normal way or reversed as described above. For the second method you will need the reverse ring of the above paragraph. The use of tripod and macro focusing rail becomes essential again. Kenko and some other companies make tubes which give focus confirmation (and may be AF, aperture control). But there are other much cheaper alternatives (just metal or plastic tubes, no connectivity) which do not provide such connection between lens and camera. If you mount the lens reversed on tubes, then you loose AF etc anyway.

Most of the lenses starting with 50mm to wider focal lengths work perfectly when reversed. I have not been able to achieve good results with 85mm or longer.

Canon EF lenses do not have aperture control on the lens body (you control it directly from camera). Thus I find it a bit awkard to use either nifty fifty or any other EF lens for this reverse or tube method. I need to first stop down lens while normally mounted on the camera body. Then I have to unmount the lens while keeping the Depth of Field Preview button pressed so that the lens remain stopped down even when unmounted. Then I can use the lens on tube or reversed. The stopping down of the lens is to achieve a little bit more depth of field, as the above methods (reverse or tube or reverse on tube) make the DOF of the order of 1 to 2 MILLIMETERS. For this, lenses which offer aperture control (example older pentax, or non-G nikon, probably FD) are better suited.

Finally to repeat myself, I have found that any extension tube works as long as it is made of metal (assuming you are not looking for AF or aperture control). The lenses that you are going to mount (50mm or below, the lighter versions) are not so heavy that they will create problem. of course 35mm L or 24mm L may create problems. So avoid heavy lenses.

39

Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the Way? [CR1]

« on: October 02, 2012, 10:45:32 AM »

Any idea/experience regarding how the Tamron 18-270 performs?

40

Lenses / Re: Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal

« on: October 01, 2012, 07:14:50 PM »

@RAKAMRAK

Agreed, also.  It's a broad church, with many different nuts and many different ways of cracking them.

For a lot of folk the stop difference isn't a big deal on paper, what a lot of folk don't realise is that the faster aperture affects the operation of the camera in ways other than exposure.

I was making a general point, prompted by your reasonable assertion, which I hope you haven't taken personally, as that was not my intention, and would apologise if thats the case.

Cheers.

Not at all. I mean there was nothing to take offense. Most of the times the exchange of opinions and ideas in CR are quite pleasurable, enjoyable, and good learning experience.

You were forwarding your opinion as I was mine. I have learnt a lot of stuff from many of your comments in different topics here.

May be I wrote so much in the reply that it seemed that I have been offended . On top of that there may be some mistake in my usage of English as well (which is my second language). I should use more emoticons.....
 

41

Lenses / Re: Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal

« on: October 01, 2012, 05:36:12 PM »

@paul13walnut5

From many discussions that I have read here on CR, I know and agree completely to whatever you have written. Do not get me wrong there. I have also seen some photos by this lens and they were amazingly sharp. It is definitely a good or very good lens.

But my reply was solely to the questions asked by OP, and the evidence presented by OP himself/herself. He did not ask for the relative benefit of 200mm L 2.8 II over other smaller max aperture lenses. He just said that he knows or thinks that this lens is undersold in spite of being what it is. So from that I drew the conclusion that seemed natural to me, that most photogs prefer other advantages than those provided by this lens (which are so nicely put together by you). If I have to relate my reply to your reply, then I would have to say not many are sports photographers who could take advantage of the AF issue pointed by you. So many others prefer the zoom advantage as you have acknowledged as well.

The fact (as claimed by OP) that this lens sells less also points to the probable scenario where many photogs do not really understand/care about the "only horizontal" or "only vertical" AF system of their camera's central points. Again we come back to the situation where not many need to photograph fast moving subjects (like sports photogs). So if occasionally there camera fails to AF on something, it is probably not even noticed. Therefore for this crowd (probably including me) bigger max aperture is not a big deal. For me (and for this crowd) the benefit of zoom and IS (of say 70-200 f/4 IS) overwhelmingly weighs against the few times I may miss AF.

Having said that, I will agree with you in that I disagree with you about the benefit of IS: for me it is a big deal. I benefit a lot from IS due to the type of subjects I generally photograph. But that is a personal issue altogether, and has nothing to do with the factual assertions of OP.

42

Lenses / Re: Portrait Lens

« on: October 01, 2012, 01:52:54 AM »

If you are an amateur and take pictures for your own pleasure and to show to your friends and family, then go ahead and get either the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 or the Canon EF 100mm f/2. Yes you cannot probably use them either at f/1.8 or at f/2 respectively, but you can use them just slightly stopped down. You won't regret. Both of these will give you some purple fringing in extreme light to dark transition lines. But just try to answer the following questions and decide. How often do you face that type of lighting and how often do you notice that in 10x8 prints? Have you looked at each of your current photographs (the keepers) with whatever lens you have now to see whether they have any colour fringing or not? And how many of your photographs have you printed at bigger sizes than 10X8 to be worried about issues of colour fringing?

Of course none of them will give you what 100mm L macro, 135mm L, or 85mm 1.4 sigma or 85mm L will give you. I have used the first and it is amazing. I have heard the other three are amazing. But then again both of the two lenses I mentioned in paragraph one cost around half of each of the four lenses I just mentioned.

24-105 is a very good lens. If you are not using a full frame camera (which you have not stated) then you will be wasting your money on it. If however you shoot a full frame camera it is probably the best general purpose zoom available. If you want macro there is also the far cheaper but still wonderful 100mm non-L macro.

Ahhhhh... too much useless stuff I have written.

The best that you can do is rent (if you have the option) both 24-105 and the 100mm L (if you so want) and see which one you like. But the versatility of a good zoom can never be overestimated.

43

Lenses / Re: Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal

« on: October 01, 2012, 01:34:43 AM »

The evidence (as presented by you, that this lens is undersold) tells us that people prefer the versatility of a 70-200 zoom more than the seeming lure of 1 f-stop more light and the possible background blur with the bigger max aperture. They probably also prefer the IS on 70-200 f/4 IS which gives you 2-3 f-stop equivalent shutter speed leeway. The one f stop advantage of a bigger max aperture may not be that big a deal as it is sometimes made out to be. But my gut feeling is that the zoom versatility and IS on the tele side weigh in favour of the 70-200 zoom.

44

Lenses / Re: Non L sharp telephoto lenses

« on: September 30, 2012, 01:14:24 PM »

HI,

When I travel I usually shoot on wide lenses, architecture and landscapes 65% of the time on my 17-40, 20% of the time I shot on 50 1.4 street photography, and in my bag I always have my 70-200 2.8 IS II for just in case, and when I walk all day long, after a while the weight of it starts to annoy me, so can you guys recommend me a tele lens with is pretty sharp over f8.

(Not necessary Canon lens)
 
Thanks

If you want a non-L Tele zoom then Tamron 70-300 is best for you. But if you want even more light weight (remember the Tamron is heavier than Canon non-L 70-300) then you need to check at what focal length you use the 70-200 while walking around.

1. If it is around the 70 mm side then you can get the Canon 85 1.8 (or may be even Sigma's 70mm macro) or Sigma 85mm. The canon 85 1.8 is extremely sharp from f/4 (you can get good pics even at f/2.. Only in extreme backlighting conditions you get purple fringing. Most of the time that will not be an issue. The sigma 85mm is costlier (but not much more in comparison to what I am going to recommend below).

2. If you use the 70-200 around the middle range most of the time then the situation is difficult as I do not see anything other than the Canon L 135mm for your need.

3. If you use the 70-200 around 200mm most of the time then again there is the Canon L 200mm f/2.8. But none of these primes have IS if that is important for you.

4. If you want the same versatility with almost equal IQ of 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, then 70-200 L f/4 IS is your best bet.

See there are two problems with your situation, first, you are looking for a substitute for 70-200 IS II. I do not think you will be happy with the IQ of any lens (save the 70-200 f/4) which is LIGHTER and yet covers the same range (the light weight and price rules out the tele primes) and is non-L. Second problem is as far as I know none of the third party manufacturers make light weight medium tele primes (emphasis on the medium and light weight, which rules out anything below 100mm and the macro primes above 100mm).

I would suggest the Tamron if you are not averse to Tamron, or else get any of the three primes depending on your focal length need.

45

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 70-200 OS

« on: September 25, 2012, 10:11:20 PM »

I am not that much concerned with build quality, as it seems sigma pro lenses are generally built well. But the other two point of yours and background blur when wide open are what I am concerned about.