October 21, 2014, 09:11:13 PM

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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 53
466
Landscape / Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« on: August 28, 2012, 09:29:41 AM »
Question: would the IQ be so much different if you took the same photo (something like an early evening sunset) with both lens, say at a setting of f5.6, ISO 100, 20mm length, using a tripod and remote release?
The more you stop down a lens, the more comparable many of them become. The general consensus is that, stopped down, the 16-35 and 17-40 are very similar, and if you'll be using it a lot for f/8 landscapes, its easier to save money with the 17-40.

This is generally true with all lenses where there are multiples (non-L v L primes, etc)...if you have the ability to shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 all the time, you won't see a big difference in spending twice as much. But, you often buy the more expensive version because you need something else it does (f/2.8 allows faster shutter speeds than f/4, for example...or the f/1.4 of primes is important for depth of field control)

Quote
Can I assume that the shutter speed of the f2.8 would be half that of the f4? and with a tripod would the IQ be so different?
At the same focal length, if your aperture and ISO are the same on both cameras, they will both give you the same shutter speed. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO are all inter-connected to set the exposure on your camera; if you lower one, you have to raise another to get the same exposure.

Now, at f/2.8 the 16-35 would have twice as fast a shutter speed as the 17-40 at f/4. That could be the difference between 1/50th s shutter speed and 1/100th, which might be the difference between getting a shot of people that's blurry, or one that is clear. The f/4 lens can't get that same shutter speed without raising ISO, which is something that isn't always ideal to do. Likewise for night photography, the f/2.8 might allow you to take a shot at 10s exposures, where you'd either need to boost ISO or shoot at 20s with the 17-40. The use cases are more specific for why you'd want the 16-35, but, when you need it, its invaluable.

467
Lenses / Re: 15-85 USM Dust inside
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:56:54 AM »
My first copy of a 24-105 had an air bubble in the outer element.
An air bubble in the front element is a big difference from a little dust, which is something every lens ever has.

More info: http://mansurovs.com/what-to-do-with-dust-inside-lens

468
Lenses / Re: 15-85 USM Dust inside
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:54:00 AM »
Is it a common thing to have dust in a brand new lens?
Depends how much dust you really have; all lenses are gonna contain some level of dust, and my guess is that because its new, you are expecting it a little closer than someone who has had the lens for a year or two, and thus doesn't really look that closely. There's a good Lensrental article on dust. Basically, unless you have a LOT of it on your rear element, on a wide angle lens, at f/16 or f/22, where you are focusing fairly closely, you won't notice it. The same is true with scratches actually, you can get a pretty deep scratch, and only have it show up if you point at the sun.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust

469
Look at what happened to the 580 EXII. New ones are almost impossible to find and the price has gone up well above what it was before the announcement of the 600 EX.
In the new market, yes, in the used market, not so much. That's one of things I think a lot of people are forgetting, there are a TON of 5dII's that were bought in the last year, and those people would probably upgrade to a better AF system if possible. There's also still the refurbished route, which Canon maintains on products they've discontinued like the T1i for example. I can get a refurb 580EX II for $339 +tax right now, and its $399+tax normally. I can't imagine the 5dII refurb disappearing from the Canon store, so, at worst, that price will stay the same

I don't think the price can go any lower. If Canon launches a 2K FF camera, I'd assume they would immediately discontinue the 5DII. The result could then raise the 5DII's price from smaller dealers. Just look what happened to the 24-70L as soon as it was discontinued!
And that is because there is no replacement. Simple supply and demand; a lot of people need the 24-70 in their kit, and its impossible to get a new one from an authorized dealer. If Canon completely killed off the 5dII (0 stock anywhere, no refurbs) and didn't deliver the 6D for a year, then yes, 5dII prices would go higher. But they'd all be used, and it'd be a different story. It'd be a secondary concern to the fact they'd have destroyed their reputation and lost a lot of photographers who bought Nikon instead

Also, note that lenses hold their value much better, often rising in price over time. The same isn't true of camera bodies, where you are lucky to hold 50% of its value 5 years after its released.


470
Price will go UP
I don't see that. If the new full-frame is announced at $2000, the 5dII price will plummet. If it's announced at $2500, then the 5dII price will stay the same. Remember, the 5dII is now retailing at $2200, so, they'll either discontinue it or have to drop that retail price when they announce a new version.

If no new version is announced at Photokina, then I think you'll see prices go lower a little bit. There will be some holiday sales, etc. Nothing major.

471
Actually, the 5dII kit (w/ 24-105) has gone as low as $2400 or so; but its more regular to find it in the $2600 range.

But, yes, your math makes sense, it just depends on what you are willing to spend on. The 5dII I believe is now 10% off through Canon Loyalty, which makes it $1580+tax. So, probably $1650-1700 after tax. And its pretty easy to find someone selling the 24-105 new out of their kit for $800 or so. But, that leaves you at $2500 with a 90 day warranty on your camera, and no warranty on your lens.

So, if you think you'll want the 24-105 for the camera, I'd get the kit, as for that extra little money, you'll have a 1yr warranty on everything

472
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS vs 24-105 f/4L IS
« on: August 23, 2012, 12:39:05 PM »
I never had good luck with video once I got over ISO 800 on my 5d2 while shooting video; it got noisy in what I thought was unattractive ways. And I preferred to be at ISO 400 or slower.
That's because you don't want to use the standard ISO's for video; you want to work exclusively in multiples of 160. So ISO 160/320/640/800/1600...which doesn't leave you much room after ISO 800. But, ISO 640 will look better than ISO 100. http://www.petapixel.com/2011/05/02/use-iso-numbers-that-are-multiples-of-160-when-shooting-dslr-video/

The 24-105 will be great if a lot of what you shoot is outdoors, but, its going to be unusable indoors on your 60D, and limited on the 5dII. I guess it depends a lot on what you shoot, but generally speaking, you are better off using low-light primes for flexibility with video, and either having a rig or a tripod involved.

The IS is certainly nice to have if you're shooting a lot of run and gun stuff, but, you'll have to decide if it limits you too much.

473
Lenses / Re: Low Light options
« on: August 23, 2012, 10:02:13 AM »
The flash would still be a better option for wedding situations, where the rooms are dim and you're often taking group shots.  Ideally, you would like to get both a flash and the Sigma 30 to cover your bases.
For the pro hired to take the pictures, yes. For a guest just taking snapshots; flash is a good way to piss off people. I agree that there are situations where a flash will be nice (birthday parties, events, etc); but there's also plenty of times where its not socially acceptable; or worse, where your flash will actually ruin other's photos.


474
Lenses / Re: Low Light options
« on: August 23, 2012, 09:59:53 AM »
My question is, if I had the 17-50 Tamron f2.8 nonVC for indoor use how much would it of improved my ISO or pictures?

Here are some examples:
1.  Some of the really dark pictures from the rides I was at f3.5 at 3200 ISO and they were still not great.  What the f2.8 of been able to capture the shot?
2.  If I had indoor pictures at 3200 ISO from f4 to f5 then with the f2.8 what ISO would I get and would I be able to avoid using a flash?
Well, the difference between f/2,8 and f/4 is one stop. So, if you're shooting 3200 ISO and f/3.5 and f/4, then you'd be shooting at ISO1600 with the Tamron. Maybe ISO800 on shots you took at f/5.6.

Some things to consider; if you are taking more posed shots (not kids running around, etc) then IS would allow you to lower your shutter speed by 3 stops or so. But, if its for moving subjects, thats not help. Likewise, an f/1.4 lens would represent a 3 stop improvement over your current lens, and f/1.8 is a little more than 2. Those are big enough differences that you'll either get faster shutter speeds (less blurry shots) or be able to shoot lower ISO.

If you like your 15-85's range, then a prime or two in that range is probably your answer. The 50mm f/1.8 is cheap, the f/1.4 version would be even better. As someone mentioned, the 28mm f/1,8 would be good for shots that are a little wider, and the 85mm f/1,8 would be good for closer in shots. I'd see what focal length you use the most and grab that first.

As for using them on a body that doesn't AFMA, then you want to either be able to test it out before hand or buy it from somewhere that allows easy returns. Or, send it in to Canon to calibrate.

475
You have used surprisingly low shutter speeds. I was shooting around 1/1000 of a second so as to avoid motion blur.
Yeah, generally speaking, when I am shooting wildlife, I am putting the lens on the fastest aperture possible, because I am both trying to isolate the subject and avoid motion blur. That same shot at f/4 would still have the tree and squirrel in focus, but the background would be much more diffuse. The green area would be completely blurred, and even the limb behind him would be much more blurred. That would isolate the squirrel more where he now blends with the limb a little. And your shutter speeds would be more like 1/100th of a second, which would save you from getting blurred shots if he moved.

The big thing is background choice. I know this is damn near impossible with something that moves so much like squirrels, but if you were 3-4 steps right and crouched a little, there would be more green which would isolate the squirrel more and make him stand out

476
Technical Support / Re: Need help with upgrade decission!!
« on: August 22, 2012, 12:04:39 PM »
TRON: my needs are: portrait, food and indoor locations (as in restaurants) and concert.
          my equipment is: 40D, Canon 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 60mm macro, 17-55mm 2.8 and 55-250mm; Sigma 30mm 1.4 and 10-20mm 4-5.6... so I have a bit of investment in crop.

5Diii would be a dream, but not sure if it's realistic looking at my budget and if it would be overkill for me. I'm an amateur after all…
Sounds like you have a decent plan, but, aside from the concert stuff, the 5dIII would definitely be overkill for you in terms of AF. The 5dII AF would be the same as your 40D, and you'd be gaining probably 2 stops of light just by that sensor switch. But, based on your investment with EF-S lenses, and what you are shooting, I'd say spend all the time between now and October learning flash. You need it for portrait and product photography anyway, and it might take away the need for full-frame, allowing you to keep those lenses.

The good news is that you have enough lenses that moving to full-frame wouldn't hurt you. Replace the 60mm macro with the non-L 100 and your prime lineup would be set. And a 17-40 would probably take care of the gap left with the 10-20, if you use that often. Either that or something like one of the non-L 20, 24 or 28mm primes, if you need low light wide angle shots for the concert. But chances are flash will help clear up your need for quite a few things; I shot a friends wedding with all f/2.8 glass (and the 50mm f/1.8), and with flash, I didn't need anything faster

477
Technical Support / Re: Need help with upgrade decission!!
« on: August 22, 2012, 11:57:57 AM »
Not to hijack your thread, but where do you plan on selling the EF-S lenses? I have a new 17-55 2.8 IS that I want to unload and didn't have much success on Craig's List and some UK scammer tried to buy it on EBay ...
FredMiranda, PotN, basically any photography forum with a buy/sell forum. Scammers are a lot less frequent there, though they do still exist.

478
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:41:03 PM »
JMHO - Since there was no mention of any video features, maybe to keep costs down, this will be a Photo Only Camera??? Good for Landscape and Portrait type work, than it really won't see much video work.

Thoughts?
Video costs Canon very little to implement. Seeing as Magic Lantern made the 50D a camera capable of recording video, I can tell you that the implementation is fairly cheap software. It may not be amazing video, but its video. If you would be fine with the camera not having Live View, then sure, they could possibly leave video out and save some money. Otherwise, once the tech is there, the choice to not record video is just silly and saves them nothing. But it does cost them buyers (a bunch might but the video-enabled D800 instead), and that means a higher price on the camera. Chances are Canon would have to charge 20-30% more for a video-less camera, which is why you will probably not ever see one

479
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:20:31 PM »
Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? 
Well, for the D800, a 14 bit uncompressed RAW file is 75mb according to Nikon. And that is off a 36MP sensor. A 45+ MP sensor, you're probably looking at 100+mb for a RAW file, which is about quadruple what the current file size is. That adds up very quickly when you are shooting 100's of images at a time.

480
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 04:33:11 PM »
Is this just a defensive rumor started by Canon to stop people from defecting to Nikon and buying the D800?
I doubt that. Anyone who wanted to defect would have already, since they've had several months to consider it. The D800 is real, a Canon variant isn't, for someone who needs the MP, they've moved already. Especially since there was no indication Canon was gonna match the D800 in price.

Price I think will be $5000 - $5500 and for the designated user, I think is very reasonable.  I think it's going to dust the Nikon D800, but should NOT be direct competition due to the price difference.

For the full-time pro, I think this camera is a huge home-run.  I'd consider picking up this camera in a couple of years unless Canon comes out with a medium format camera....
Yep, these I can see being about right. And I think Nikon actually made a mistake pricing the D800 so low. There are quite a few people that switched because it was affordable to do so, only to realize they didn't need or want 36MP, and now they are changing back. I've seen it a bunch for wedding/pj types, where the hassle of the extra storage and extra processing isn't worth it

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 53