Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Am I crazy to sell my Canon gear?

« on: May 20, 2013, 10:31:31 AM »

I like the idea of going with smaller gear for certain situations, and the IQ is certainly very good now... but have you held on in your hands?

I held a friend's NEX a couple months ago and it cramped my hands inside a minute.  Ergonomics are worth something I'd say. 

When I decided to go digital, I had an older Minolta manual focus system, so I had no upgrade path to follow, and I looked at every brand and option.  I went with Canon for both lens selection and how they felt in my hand. 

So, if you try something new, try it in your hands before you sell the old gear, at the least.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?

« on: April 03, 2013, 10:26:21 AM »

I moved to FF in the middle of last year and the difference is astounding.  I did a portrait of my daughter with a 50mm f/1.4 at ISO 25600, lit by a single candle in a dark room, hand held.  Yeah, it's a bit noisy by that setting, but still quite usable.  There is no way I could have done it with the 50D (I realize the 7D is a lot better than the 50D).

The AF of the 5D3 is incredible.  As others have noted, having more shots in focus is a major plus.  That was the main reason I upgraded.

I get the sense that the 6D is a little better in low light, but not as good for action, but I have not tried a 6D.

As others mentioned, crop sensors don't even enter my mind when you say "low light candids".  You are not focal-length limited with candids. 

3

Lenses / Re: Lens Help - 17-40 & 70-200 f/4 or 24-70 f/4

« on: January 28, 2013, 03:48:49 PM »

If you were just talking landscapes, I'd say option 2 because the missing 40-70mm range is nothing for landscapes, unless you happen to love 50mm with landscapes.

With kids, family outings, and general walk-around, I think the 24-xx is a more important range to cover.  The 85mm f/1.8 will cover your portrait needs in style.  I'd hang onto that no matter what else you get.  Kids are kids for such a brief time.

I tried the 24-70 f/4L and apparently had a bad copy.  At first I thought I needed MFA, but found I could not get anything sharp even with 10x liveview on a solid tripod.  Everything was soft, and I've used enough lenses to know I could do much much better.  For the money, it had to go back.  My 15-85 on my old 50D worked far better at half the cost (I'm now using a 5D3).  The 15-85 is outstanding, but of course is EF-S and won't work on full-frame.  So now I'm considering the 24-105 (still waiting for B&H to refund me, it's a long wait).

I would do what others have suggested, and see if you can swing the 24-105 + 70-200.  If not, then just get the 24-105 for now, and save for the other.

4

Technical Support / Re: Press shutter once to take picture, it stays closed, press again and it opens

« on: January 09, 2013, 01:44:51 PM »

Yes there is absolutely a difference in quality caused by mirror vibrations.  Mirror lockup definitely reduces the vibrations in the camera.

It's easy to test.  Use a sturdy tripod, focus accurately, use a remote release.    Try something at 1/8 and 1/15 sec.  Do this both with and without mirror lockup.  The greater the magnification, the easier it is to see the difference.

5

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!

« on: December 06, 2012, 10:11:55 PM »

Sign me up please, I'd love to win the 18L! 

My friend has the Kiboko 30L and it is wonderful.  I've been looking for a bag with a good harness system.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D MkIII instructions - Rant !!

« on: December 06, 2012, 02:02:22 PM »

The OP made me chuckle.  Yeah, some of those are pretty silly, but like others have said, there are people out there who really need the help.  I encountered quite a few of them when I did tech support.  Wizard's First Rule.

OTOH, before my 5D3 arrived, I browsed the manual and read up on relevant parts like the AF system and various customization options.  Most of the features are pretty obvious to someone familiar with a Canon DSLR, but the camera is way more feature-packed than my previous bodies and I had a much better idea of how I'd customize it when it arrived.  There were a few tidbits in the manual that helped me, that would not have been obvious to me without going over it.

Nikon bodies, on the other hand...  I was out photographing a waterfall and someone approached me, asking if I knew how to enable the movie mode on their D90.  I figured it would be obvious, but I could not figure it out.  It's totally obvious to me on Canon bodies without reading a thing.   Then again, Nikon does focus backwards... 

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop

« on: December 03, 2012, 10:02:09 AM »

Something isn't an upgrade if it doesn't improve your situation.  Likewise something isn't a downgrade if it works better for you.   Lots of folks use both types.

8

Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts

« on: November 08, 2012, 09:13:17 AM »

My $0.02. 

I just sold half of my gear to pay for the 5D3.  I was left with the 50 f/1.4, 100 macro, and 100-400.  I've been using the 50 as my walkaround lens, and just love the IQ.  I'm kind of spoiled by it. 

So I'm in the market for a general purpose zoom, with a taste for quality (tough spot to be in, on a budget  ). When I want wide, I've found, historically, that 24mm is usually just right for me.  I was eyeing the 24-105 as a great range, but just a little put off by the not-quite-stellar performance at 24mm.   I have a feeling I wouldn't be happy with the 24-105 on the wide end, and adding the 24mm f/2.8 IS kind of puts me close to the 24-70 II price range...

Enter the 24-70 f/4L IS.  While not a bargain, it might be closer to what I have in mind, IQ-wise, and be a bit more affordable, cheaper and more convenient than other combinations I've considered.   I'd still prefer a 24-105, but I'm also likely to take the IQ over the range.  I'm waiting to see test results, including bokeh.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you go through a body? Why do you upgrade?

« on: November 02, 2012, 08:51:41 AM »

Prior to digital, I kept my Minolta bodies (SRT-102 and XD-11) for at least 20 years without an upgrade.   When it became clear that digital was at least equal to film and I had to pay for repairs annually on the XD-11s, I switched to EOS.  I had the 20D for around 5 years, felt the 50D was a good enough upgrade (then kicked myself a year later when the 7D came out), and recently I found the 50D's AF system just doesn't track well enough, so I moved to the 5D3.  The 5D3 knocks the socks off the previous bodies.  I don't see needing an upgrade for years... as long as the body lasts I think.

10

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-85mm

« on: October 25, 2012, 10:54:09 AM »

If the range is useful to you, just buy it.  Mine was extremely sharp at all apertures (I didn't see any softness until the extreme corners wide open).  It's a great walkaround lens, and was a great landscape lens.  It even had decent bokeh.  For indoors I use a fast prime instead.  I didn't have zoom creep, but it was still pristine when I sold it (I bought a 5D3).

11

EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?

« on: October 19, 2012, 09:52:51 AM »

Is the crop 7D going to have more reach? Yes of course.  But of course you can just crop the FF image for more reach also.

is the 7D going to yield more pixels vs. the cropped 5D/ yes of Course 

Is it going to yield more detail? Depends if the lens is sharp enough. And the 100-400 is not known for sharpness at 400. So maybe not.

On my 400mm f2.8 IS I, my 7D has way more reach and detail than my 5D II (now III)

My 100-400 is excellent at 400, wide open.  And coupled with my 5D3, the images are much nicer than what came out of my 50D.  I attribute a good part of that to the AF of the 5D3.

So to the OP, you have an excellent lens lineup.  I think good AF is a major factor for wildlife.  I'd go with either a 7D or 5D3 for the AF... or 1D4, 1DX if you can afford such.  If you go full frame, replace the 10-22 with a 17-40 unless you need the extra stop of the 16-35.

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?

« on: October 15, 2012, 01:11:16 PM »

The 100mm f/2.8 USM macro is a fantastic lens.  I can't see myself giving it up... great macros and landscapes.  However, it is very slow focusing, and sometimes struggles to focus at all in low light.  It definitely can't keep up with my kids when they run around.   For portraits, I plan to pick up an 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2.

I have the 50mm f/1.4.  Great lens overall.

I'm still trying to decide what to do for a wide.  I've considered the Samyang 14mm, Canon 20 or 24 f/2.8, Olympus 21mm, Nikon AI-S 20 or 24, or the Voigtlander 20mm.  In the end, I feel probably the 17-40 has a better bang-for-buck than any of the primes.  Of course that will mess up the trinity thing and ends up being somewhat larger...

13

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Yalta Boardwalk - 5DIII @ 5000 ISO

« on: August 27, 2012, 09:41:40 AM »

This is why I jumped from crop to FF.

Ditto.  I love the colors and contrast I'm getting from the 5D3.  Night and day vs my 50D.   

14

Lenses / Re: 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F.28L IS macro

« on: August 16, 2012, 03:10:01 PM »

I have the non-IS model and I love it, but I use a tripod for most closeups.  Bokeh is excellent on the non-IS model.  IQ-wise you can't make a bad choice.

If I didn't have time for a tripod, I'd certainly opt for the IS model.   If you are getting paid and the clients want ring pics, I think it'll pay for itself.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 10, 2012, 01:42:43 PM »

If Nikon had better ergonomics, I'd have bought one years ago when I went digital.  But I have yet to find one that feels good in my hands.