April 21, 2014, 11:36:08 AM

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 - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 27
241
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 25, 2012, 03:43:14 PM »
Also, images from a high MP camera is going to take a lot of harddisk place. Unless you are intending to make large prints or some drastic cropping, running out of space on the hard drive will be the only difference you will probably feel between 5Dmk2 and a high MP cam... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!
mRAW, sRAW.  Problem solved.  You can always downscale resolution, but it's impossible to add resolution beyond the camera's capabilities.

I agree TS-E lenses are a necessity (especially 17mm and 24mm I or II).  Full frame is a definite.  I'd say a 5D or 5D Mark II will save you a ton of money so you'll be able to buy both FLs.  Good tripod and head is also necessary. 

Additionally, you could add a used T2i, T3i, T4i or 60D in order to acheive 28mm and 38mm TS lenses with the crop factor (at 18mp; cropping the a FF picture from 5D would be 5MP, 5D II would be 8.2MP).

Except high MP cams don't shoot mRAW or sRAW.  At least none that I know of.  I'm not counting the 5D3, 5D2, or 1Ds3.  The D800 definitely doesn't.
Oh, I get it.  The first time I read it I thought that the poster was saying that 5D II or 5D III were high megapixel and were unnecessary.  I see what was meant now.
your kindness made me so happy , thanks alot for your advices . and my last question ( i promise :D) if i want to take videos ( usually short one ) of architecture for somewhere that still images do not cover the scence , or do not transfer the feel of space .... what do you think i need ? ( i mean extra)
If I read what you're asking, is that you probably want to do some slow, smooth panning shots to better 'feel' the space.  I have no direct experience with that, but I would think the 17 and 24 TS-E's would be good for it and require a good, smooth pan head (or geared head) on your tripod and with accurate measuring of the level of the mounting plate.  Now if you're talking about follow shots or dolly shots much more equipment will be needed (rails, etc).

242
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 25, 2012, 02:55:40 PM »
This is how I read it...
1. EOS 1DX V
2.  EOS 3D
2.  EOS 5D IV
3.  EOS 7D II
Huh?
4.  EF 14-24
5.  EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS
6.  EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS III
7.  EF 200 - 400L f/2.8 II IS
Sounds realistic
8.  EF 14L f.1.4 IS
Yeah, right.
9.  EF 24L f/1.4 IS
10. EF 35L f/1.2 IS
11. EF 50L f/1.2 IS
12. EF 85L f/1.2 IS
14. EF 135L f/1.4 II IS
I guess IS would be useful, sometimes.  The extra $25000 in cash would also be.
17. EF 300L f/2.0 II IS
Ha
19. EF 500L f/2.8 II IS
20. EF 600L f/2.8 II IS
hahaha
21. EF 800L f/2.8 II IS
22. EF 1200 f/2.8 II IS
HAHAHAHA
23. EF 2000 f/2.8 II Macro IS
24. EF 5000 f2/8 II Macro IS
25 700EX-RT (at least 16 of them)
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
LOL.  Bonus points for creativity.

243
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:31:55 PM »
If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

Troll. Do you really feel like 36MP is necessary?  Unless your're printing in feet instead of inches, it is completely unnecessary. Also, if you're referring to Nikon's perceived high ISO image quality it is a moot point to an architecture photographer who shoots at native ISO (100) about 95% of the time.

How about Nikon's mediocre (compared to Canon) and outdated PC-E lenses?  What?  Nikon doesn't even manufacture a 17mm lens with shift?  That's a shame.

I'm not tryin to be a fanboy, but Canon is clearly the better choice for architectural purposes.

244
EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:37:33 PM »
I love my primes.  I do wish I had a full frame camera, though, because I would enjoy 35 more than my current 135 (with crop).  The other two FLs overlap on either system (56 and 80 with crop, 50 and 85 without).  The smaller depth of field would also be fun to take advantage of.  That's not to say I haven't taken good pictures with them, or have not enjoyed using them, but 'the grass is always greener...'

245
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:18:57 PM »
Also, images from a high MP camera is going to take a lot of harddisk place. Unless you are intending to make large prints or some drastic cropping, running out of space on the hard drive will be the only difference you will probably feel between 5Dmk2 and a high MP cam... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!
mRAW, sRAW.  Problem solved.  You can always downscale resolution, but it's impossible to add resolution beyond the camera's capabilities.

I agree TS-E lenses are a necessity (especially 17mm and 24mm I or II).  Full frame is a definite.  I'd say a 5D or 5D Mark II will save you a ton of money so you'll be able to buy both FLs.  Good tripod and head is also necessary. 

Additionally, you could add a used T2i, T3i, T4i or 60D in order to acheive 28mm and 38mm TS lenses with the crop factor (at 18mp; cropping the a FF picture from 5D would be 5MP, 5D II would be 8.2MP).

246
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: AF Assist for Canons 61/41 AF
« on: August 21, 2012, 05:43:12 PM »
I have been happy with my ST-E2, in a pitch black room I can nail focus with my 30D on a smooth (no texture) white wall at about 25-30 ft.  Impressive, considering I normally can't lock focus on a smooth, white wall in good light because there isn't even enough contrast to detect a phase difference.  Works perfectly with my 420EX flashes, and I've discovered in a small enough space line-of-sight is not needed to remotely trigger the slave flashes (do to reflections around the room).  Very happy with my purchase (although I didn't pay nearly what the MSRP is, because I bought it broken and repaired it).

Downside on the ST-E2 is that it takes the [now rare] 2CR5 battery.  Check to make sure it is available in your area (locally, or supplied by retailers that ship to Trinidad) before buying.

247
Its tricky, because the common sense is that the IS isn't going to do you any good for sports since people are moving so fast...
I somewhat disagree with that, because the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the same as just bumping up your ISO one stop, and unless you're already at the upper limit of your camera, or the upper limit of usable image quality, I think the f/4 IS is definitely a good sports lens.  Additionally, sometimes you don't want 1/250+ action-stopping shutter speed, and in that case the panning mode with the f/4 IS is more valuable than the f/2.8 non-IS.  The idea that only f/2.8 lenses are professional is becoming less true every year with the advances in digital technology.  In film days ISO 1600 looked pretty bad, now you can't buy a DSLR camera with IQ as bad as even the best ISO 1600 film (and the difference is probably a stop or two better).

You can't think just in terms of exposure for sports.  You need to think in terms of types of AF sensors that are accessable to the camera for focusing.  An f/2.8 lens MIGHT be able to use dual cross types, for instance, whereas a partcular f/4 lens cannot.  This is exactly why I have 300 f/2.8L vs. the 300 f/4L.  High action focusing in low light.
Fair enough.  I'm wondering though, how does the 18-year-old technology 70-200mm f/2.8L USM compare to the 6-year-old 70-200mm f/4L IS USM?  Read Roger Cicala's articles regarding Canon AF accuracy, there is a real possibility that the f/4 IS is actually more accurate without the cross, than the former is with it.

What about framing on the long end (assisted by the IS)?

I think we can all agree that the f/4 IS is sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS, so it also has that in its favor.

I'm not trying to argue, just things to consider for the OP.  I hope my my tone isn't coming through as argumentative.

248
Its tricky, because the common sense is that the IS isn't going to do you any good for sports since people are moving so fast...
I somewhat disagree with that, because the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the same as just bumping up your ISO one stop, and unless you're already at the upper limit of your camera, or the upper limit of usable image quality, I think the f/4 IS is definitely a good sports lens.  Additionally, sometimes you don't want 1/250+ action-stopping shutter speed, and in that case the panning mode with the f/4 IS is more valuable than the f/2.8 non-IS.  The idea that only f/2.8 lenses are professional is becoming less true every year with the advances in digital technology.  In film days ISO 1600 looked pretty bad, now you can't buy a DSLR camera with IQ as bad as even the best ISO 1600 film (and the difference is probably a stop or two better).

249
Lenses / Re: Wider lens for new FF user - 35L vs. new 28 IS
« on: August 17, 2012, 01:38:04 PM »
It just seems like the 28 IS will work in my specific need (small, wide, low-light for non-moving stuff, still handles polarizers, not too wide for general walkaround use) without any degradation of IQ compared to the closest L lenses.  Seems like a win in my (admittedly bizarre) little world.
Yeah, seems like the IS would be important to you if you want to shoot lower light stuff (shutter speeds in the 1/8th, 1/15th area) without the need to carry around a tripod. If its a lens you'll use when you have a tripod around a bunch, then I'd just get the older 28mm f/1.8 and save a few hundred bucks, as it resolves nearly as well.


The 28mm f/1.8 is worse in corner resolution than the new IS version.  Comparison:

Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM vs. 28mm f/2.8 IS USM ( both at f/2.8 )
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=789&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

And wide-open for the f/1.8 is even worse, and if wide open is not usably sharp, then you're giving up the advantage of the wider aperture and might as well go for the lens that is sharper at f/2.8 (and has IS to boot), albeit at a higher price than the f/1.8 version.

250
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony NEX goes Full Frame!!!!
« on: August 17, 2012, 01:17:51 PM »
Using the past tense tends to convey that something has happened.  The title is misleading, as it is currently only a rumor (albeit from many trusted sources apparently).  No leaked pictures or spec list?  I'm glad CRguy wouldn't put a half-baked rumor like that up like it is fact.

CR guy CRed rumors as CR3 too in the past... what´s the difference?

Future tense vs. past tense.  Additionally, CR3 tends to include pretty detailed spec lists, leaked pictures, etc.  Not just 'trusted sources say this is coming'.  Craig is more of a journalism that specializes in Canon equipment and future annoucements and the writing style on CR reflects that, the writing style on SAR is lacking in that regard.

251
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony NEX goes Full Frame!!!!
« on: August 17, 2012, 11:14:20 AM »
Using the past tense tends to convey that something has happened.  The title is misleading, as it is currently only a rumor (albeit from many trusted sources apparently).  No leaked pictures or spec list?  I'm glad CRguy wouldn't put a half-baked rumor like that up like it is fact.

252
Lenses / Re: Wider lens for new FF user - 35L vs. new 28 IS
« on: August 16, 2012, 06:33:42 PM »
In regards to the 90EX idea:

No zoom head, and much lower power flash than it's bigger brother - 270EX II (GN 9 @ 24mm vs. GN 22 @ 28mm).  It is even less powerful than the built-in flashes on Rebels (GN 13 @ 28mm).

253
Lenses / Re: Looking for a EF 70-200 IS USM II. Used is fine. Ideas?
« on: August 16, 2012, 02:03:27 PM »
Also think about resale. If you resell a second owner item, especially a rental item, you will not get a decent return, where as a $2k new one might even sell ove rthe 2k price used.

Is there any evidence that selling a lens second-hand will get significantly less upon sale than being the original owner (especially on sights like eBay, face-to-face may be a different story)?  Either way the buyer has no warrantee (unless the receipt is provided and it is within the first year of ownership).  Buying a lens like this is a long-term investment, and ownership will likely be 5+ years, in which case does it really matter if it's first hand or second owner.  If you were in the market for a used 2.8 IS I version, would you expect to pay significantly more for one from the original owner?  I think a particular buyer may be willing to pay more for a first-owner lens, but as a seller, I'm not sure you will get much more than the market average for a given model/condition.

254
Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
« on: August 14, 2012, 10:17:03 AM »
Crop:
10-22mm | 15-85mm | 70-200mm f/4L IS (or maybe 70-300L)

FF:
17mm TS-E | 24-105mm | 70-300L (or a future 100-400mm replacement)

255
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bought a 5D Mark iii Today (YAY)
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:46:29 PM »
The kit lens is excellent, and you will love it. 
 
Once you get a FF, focal lengths are suddenly more limited, so you might be looking for longer focal lengths soon. 
 
Fortunately, there is a good assortment of older Canon telephoto lenses that perform reasonably well on the 5D MK II, so don't be afraid to pay $100 for a old 70-210mm f/4 zoom, its a old push-pull design, but will fill a gap until you can afford a top of the line lens.  I gave mine to my daughter and she loves it.  Another one, a 100-300mm lens can often be found for $100, and its respectable even though not spectacular.  I have had several of both, that came with old film bodies bought on Craigslist.
Are you talking about the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?  Or the 100-300mm f/5.6 or 5.6L?  I have the former and find the image quality at 300mm to be quite poor.  The focus speed, build quality and IQ at <200mm are quite decent for the price, but I think the IQ of this lens is the worst of all the Canon xxx-300mm zooms they have made.  I have considered selling it to buy the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-210mm f/4, 100-300mm f/5.6, or any of the 75-300mm lenses.

I also just picked up the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 for $100, and while the image quality is much better than the 100-300mm USM, the focus speed is nearly unusable, so I might just list it on eBay and make a little profit from the flip (they normally go for $175-250).

I was replying to the OP, he noted that he was on a budget.  You are welcome to the Canon 75-300mm lens, if you think it is great, go for it, I'm not going to knock someone for their choice of lenses, we all have to make buying decisions that are right for us.  The 100-300 is weak at 300mm, but its strong at 100-200mm, and its cheap.  It and the 70-210mm f/4 which is better, both pickup where his 24-105mm L leaves off.  A 200-400mm lens leaves a gap for him to fill.
 
Obviously, we would like to recommend top lenses, but if he is looking for a place holder to extend his focal length for now, the 70-210 would be my first recommendation.
 
Here is a cat photo with my 70-210mm f/4 taken a few years back with my 30D or 40D.  This is a 100% crop at 200mm and wide open aperture.
Impressive shot. Have you owned any of the other lenses I mentioned?  If I do decide to sell off my telephoto zooms, I would like to get the best bang/buck replacement (since they are all in the same price range) and I would value your opinion on the choices.

if the long zoom needs to cost less then i'd get 55-250 or tamron 70-300 vc over the ones you mention
Except that the 55-250mm is an EF-S lens that will not even mount on the 5D3.

Just to follow up with what I was saying a couple months back:

I did end up finding a good deal on a 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, and find the sharpness and overall image quality to be better.  The 70-210 does not have the horrible ghosting on the long end that I saw with the 100-300 USM.  The extra 2/3 stop will be nice for less than perfect lighting.  Overall I'm pleased with the purchase, and the 100-300mm is already listed on eBay.  Thanks for the suggestion, Mt Spokane.  Additionally, I sold the Tamron 200-400mm, as I found the AF to be unusably slow.  It sold for much more than I paid, so the short ownership was more than worth it.

Eventually I'll step up to a 70-200mm f/4L or 70-200mm f/4L IS, but this will do for now.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 27