Messages

211

Technical Support / Re: Tripod for moving subjects

« on: June 27, 2012, 11:24:55 AM »

Video tripod is not a bad shout. 

But.

Only if you get the tripod ring for your lens.  So you can use the body in portrait (video heads don't have a portrait position)

I can recommend the 501HDV as a relatively inexpensive reasonably smooth head, the mvh502 is probably better, and a sachtler ACE is best of all.

The key is counterbalance.  You need to have counterbalance to make camera movements very smooth, otherwise you are fighting against gravity and imbalance.

A video monopod could be an option, interested to hear what settings you are using that a monopod isn't stable enough for, must be pretty low shutter speeds?

I tend to shoot at 1/125 most of the time. I'll go lower down to around 1/80 if I'm on a shorter lens but for the 70 200 I'm mostly shooting 1/125. Regarding the tripod ring mount, I use a flash bracket that lets me turn the camera vertical so no need for that other than some extra balance which would be nice. It also helps with redeye. I've honestly never actually shot with anything other than an image stabilized telephoto lens. Either the 70 200 f/4 IS or 2.8 IS.  I just rent these though and have been thinking of buying the 70 200 f/4 non IS. So I don't know for sure if maybe I would be fine with a monopod at that speed. I've done some informal testing during the rehearsals to see what it looks like without IS turned on and it seems like they tend to be a bit more blurry but I haven't tested out too much. My other reason for looking into a tripod is I'd like to get where I can have one camera setup on the tripod with another at my side so I can switch back and forth. With the monopod, I'm always having to hold the camera which would prevent this as well.  I eventually plan to get the 70 200 2.8 IS but that's too much money to put in right now and I don't want to buy the 70 200 f/4 IS knowing that I'm going to want to upgrade to the 2.8 IS in the future. Thus the non IS seems like a good investment and will be nice to have even after I have the 2.8 IS since it's less than half the weight for those times where I don't need the highest IQ or IS or 2.8 aperture.

212

Technical Support / Re: Tripod for moving subjects

« on: June 27, 2012, 08:42:34 AM »

Roger had that mount in a recent blog post. I was wondering if that one might work well. So you basically give a little of resistance to help hold it but have it loose enough to move with you?

I use this head for most stuff

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/camera-support-systems/ball-heads/magicball/

its kind of a mixture much smoother than a normal ball head, I have a pano plate between the tripod and magic ball and a Qmount arca style adapter on top

If i'm shooting with the 600 then i change it out for a gimbal

213

Technical Support / Re: Tripod for moving subjects

« on: June 26, 2012, 02:54:10 PM »

They're usually used for longer lenses, but a gimball head is the right design to freely track a moving subject.

I'm assuming it would work as affectively as image stabilization does or better?

214

Technical Support / Tripod for moving subjects

« on: June 26, 2012, 01:46:16 PM »

So I have a ball head tripod. It's not super great but not bad either. It definitely works very well for still subjects where I can set it up, do the mirror lock up and timer start. But if I'm trying to shoot say a wedding where I have let's say a 70 200 f4 lens non stabilized on a crop body, then the tripod really doesn't work since the subject is a lot of times at least slightly moving so I'm having to follow with them as I take pictures. For this reason I end up using a monopod instead which while good for taking the weight off, doesn't stabilize the picture a ton. Does anybody have any recommendations for tripods you use for moving subjects? I've thought of just using a video tripod instead of a ball head but wasn't sure if that was the route to go or not. Thanks.

215

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Gigapixel Camera

« on: June 21, 2012, 07:14:58 PM »

This thing really doesn't have any new sensor technology. It's basically 100 camera shots stitched together. If you try and decrease the size of the unit, you decrease the sensor size resulting in crappy quality. I'm sure they do something similar to this with satellites. Either that or just one huge sensor but the fact remains there's no new technology here to aid in improved light gathering which is the real obstacle to super high resolution cameras.

216

Lenses / Re: Looking for EF 24-105 f4L aftermarket replacement...

« on: June 14, 2012, 04:06:58 PM »

I had a EF 24-105mm f/4L on my 5D Mark II, but wasn't happy with the image quality. I had to stop it down to about f/8 in order to get decent sharpness. Wide open, it was pretty soft. I bought it second hand, and may have gotten a bad copy, but it's a story worth telling(?). Sold it (without any complaints) and bought a new Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8. Stopped down to f/4, it's as sharp as my copy of the EF 24-105mm at f/8, but at one third of the price. However, it does have a bit slower AF. I would try it out in a store.

I was going to say the same thing regarding the 28 - 70. That's about the only one I know that's full frame in the range he's looking at. I've never tried it before. I know Roger over at Lensrentals always says it's a great bang for the buck but looking at the charts on The Digital Picture isn't very encouraging. I actually got my 24-105 when I got my 5D Mark II kit. Over all I really like it. Sure I wish I had a wider aperture but I can see why people like it so much. I still have my Canon 28 135 as well. Still not sure what to do with it. It's obviously not as good but at such a low price that I could sell it at I'm still trying to decide whether to sell it or just hold onto it.

217

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 1.4 worth the upgrade?

« on: April 30, 2012, 11:18:58 PM »

Thanks for everyone's input. I think I'll try renting the 1.4 the next time I rent from lens rentals. Interesting suggestion regarding the tilt shift 45. Although with it only being 2.8 that's a little slow. I do want to try one out at some point but my main purpose for primes is light input. The one exception being the 100 is macro. I have looked at the zeiss 50 makro and would love to try that out at some point as well. That's a little out of my price range at the moment but I'll definitively keep that in mind.

218

Lenses / Canon 50 1.4 worth the upgrade?

« on: April 22, 2012, 11:41:05 AM »

So I have the canon 50 1.8. I use it some but am not super impressed with it. It's great stopped down but I can get about the same quality with the 24 105 IS. I just recently upgraded to a full frame camera. I've only gotten to do one shoot with the full frame but I'm noticing the 35 2.0 that I used a ton on my crop body isn't the focal length I'm looking for as much on full frame. What I'm trying to figure out is if I should just try messing around with the canon 50 1.8 some more or if it's worth upgrading to the 1.4. I hear lots of complaints about it not being a true usm focus system. It would be nice to have the better aperture blades but if that's the main thing I'm getting it's not worth it. Has anyone been in a similar situation and have some advice? Thanks.

219

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 135 or 24 105

« on: March 16, 2012, 04:57:27 PM »

Wow such helpful input. Thanks this really kind of seals it for me. I think I might at least for the time being keep the 24 105. I know it's value won't drop much and I can try and sell the 28 135 again. I am planning to get some fixed primes like the 35 1.4 and the Sigma 85 1.4 along with the Canon 100 IS 2.8. But that's obviously down the road a little bit. In a wedding having a zoom can be really valuable to getting a shot but you're totally right that for a lot of places 2.8 really isn't wide enough either. I shoot with flash so I can make it work with that and I guess when I get to a wedding that doesn't allow flash I'll have to go with primes anyways since 2.8 won't be enough. Thanks for the input everyone. Now I just have to convince the wife to let me keep the expensive lens we were supposed to sell lol.

Thanks awin. I think I phrased this question incorrectly. I guess the question really is, is the 24 105 a good lens for a wedding photographer or should I save up the money for the 24 70 (partially be selling the 24 105)?

I am a wedding photographer, and I have a two-part kit for events.

Core zooms:
17-40 f/4L USM
24-105 f/4L IS USM
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II

This is an excellent general purpose combo.

I frequently find myself at receptions where the room is really dark. Even worse, it's become trendy to paint the ceiling black, so bounce flash is just about useless. One stop in my core zoom lens isn't going to help me a whole lot here, really. So for those situations, I have my fast fixed lens kit:

24mm f/1.4L II
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

I find this setup to be much more flexible and usable in even the darkest venues. While an f/2.8 zoom is a very nice lens to have, in the dark places I shoot, it's just not fast enough. In places where it is, f/4 is usually just as good, especially when it has IS.

220

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 135 or 24 105

« on: March 16, 2012, 04:45:17 PM »

That definitely helps. On the 50D I can see the IS helping more but on a full frame I don't see it being beneficial for anything other than still objects as I normally shoot 1/125. I sometimes go down to 1/80 but it seems those are always a little blurrier than I'd like. Then again maybe that's camera shake and I could shoot at that just fine but from everything I've read for people moving 1/125 is pretty much the minimum.

Thanks for your input Stephen, I understand your points. In my mind I'm more comparing the 24 70 and the 24 105. I'd like to have a lighter lens for times when I don't need the 2.8 aperture but I don't want to be constantly renting the 24 70 because the 24 105 doesn't let enough light in. Then again the extra 35mm on the long end and IS means I might get a better shot in some cases.

I dont shoot many "weddings"... it isn't one of my specialties, but I shoot in dark areas with what I do... I have shot a wedding or two and borrowed the 24-70 AND the 24-105 from Canon a few years ago, had both lenses for a few weeks testing them before a wedding I had to shoot... comparing the two, The IS more than compensated for the 1 extra stop...  Plus I found the 2.8 made focus accuracy even more critical and shallower which was a blessing and a curse at the same time... Different people have different preferences, but I ended up shooting with and subsequently buying the 24-105 over the 24-70, but if the 24-70 works better for you and gives you more "keepers"... then by all means.

221

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 135 or 24 105

« on: March 16, 2012, 04:41:07 PM »

Thanks awin. I think I phrased this question incorrectly. I guess the question really is, is the 24 105 a good lens for a wedding photographer or should I save up the money for the 24 70 (partially be selling the 24 105)?

222

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 135 or 24 105

« on: March 16, 2012, 03:26:23 PM »

Thanks for your input Stephen, I understand your points. In my mind I'm more comparing the 24 70 and the 24 105. I'd like to have a lighter lens for times when I don't need the 2.8 aperture but I don't want to be constantly renting the 24 70 because the 24 105 doesn't let enough light in. Then again the extra 35mm on the long end and IS means I might get a better shot in some cases.

223

Lenses / Canon 28 135 or 24 105

« on: March 16, 2012, 03:05:34 PM »

Alright so I have a Canon 28 135 that came with my 50D kit. I never used it too much due to it not being wide enough. I just got a Canon 5D mark II with the 24 105 lens though which means it's a much more useful range. My question is this, which should I stick with? I've tried selling the 28 135 and nobody seems to want to buy it for more than $220 when it's like a $350 lens. I'm mainly planning to use the lens for weddings and portrait sessions and so my thought with the 24 105 is that yes I know it's a better lens than 28 135 but I don't want to keep it and then ALSO end up buying the original 24 70. For a walk around lens I kind of like the 28 135 better as it's lighter easier to work with and I pretty much know the 24 105 isn't going to have a wide enough aperture for most wedddings. I think that's what I'm ultimately going to end up with but before I sell the 24 105 for $850 today I thought I'd get some opinions on whether it's really worth keeping the 24 105. Thanks.

224

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D or wait?

« on: February 11, 2012, 10:55:17 AM »

I really like the articulating screen on the T3i as I've been using that recently for video. If you're not shooting video though the 60D is kind of a wash in my opinion. I currently have a 50D and am quite happy with it. The 60D is really a step in the wrong direction. I'm hoping the 70D returns the autofocus adjustment. If not I'm  looking at getting a full frame body then. So my opinion would be to wait. I'd say there's a good possibility of the 70D getting released before or around October and the T4i should be coming out even before that I would think. If you have money burning a hole in your wallet you can always invest in glass.

225

Technical Support / Re: Canon 60D makes noise when cleaning sensor???

« on: January 22, 2012, 02:31:03 PM »

m3tek44, I have a 50D a never used to hear a noise. I've now had it for about 8 months and recently started hearing the same sort of noise. Like a soft chirping. I was a little concerned at first so reading this makes me think it must be pretty normal.