September 30, 2014, 06:59:22 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 - The Bad Duck

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Lenses / Re: Need advice on telephoto zoom Lens
« on: February 08, 2013, 10:58:42 AM »
Now I´m going to make suggestions on lenses I have not used or just used once.

The 400 /5.6 is great if you can keep shutterspeeds up, and you can pump the ISO up quite a bit on a 5d mkIII. If you want a zoom, the sigma 120-300 /2.8 OS seems like a really nice lens. From looking at examples on the-digital-picture I got to the conclution that it takes extenders nicely and from 200mm and up it can compare with the 70-200 II /2.8 IS L. Up to 200 the L wins. On the other focal lengths I found the sigma equal or better. But that may be just me. The L is better in the bordes, the Sigma is quite sharp in the middle.
Then again, I don´t know if the sigma has some disadvantage in other areas that are important to you.

The 70-200 /4 and the 100-400 are quite a bit cheaper and that does make a differense. Both the 70-200´s are extraordinary good lenses but if you are used to 300 mm on aps-c, then 200 mm on FF will feel very short.

 So, my suggestion, have a look at the 400 /5.6, the 120-300 /2.8 OS + 1.4x extender, and the 100-400. Personaly I am seriously considering the 120-300.

good luck. This is not easy.

Lenses / Re: IS or no IS?
« on: February 08, 2013, 04:42:12 AM »
IS. No doubt about that.

One thing it does besides the things already mentioned above is to give you a steady viewfinder/LW while composing your image and help with panning. I´m no video guy but that seems helpful there too.

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?
« on: February 07, 2013, 04:10:25 AM »
Professional means making a living out of what ever you do. Amateur means doing it for fun, or for the love of it.

I consider myself a part time pro. I get 10-20 % of my income from paid shoots or photos sold. I could live with going up to 50% photography but the step from there to 100% is huge and would require me to do a lot of shoots that I would not want to do, just to make money. My ordinary job is great and more fun than doing shoots for clients that I dont´like. However the photography I enjoy is much more fun than work. It´s a balance for me.


Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2.  I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

+1   Man I would be in heaven.

Agree'd, I'm upgrading from a 600D and I'm finding it difficult to not just blow it on a 7D instead of waiting for the MkII. While the 7D is still a hell of an upgrade over the 600D, I know I'll be kicking myself when the MkII gets released if I caved...


Buy a lens or some lighting equipment. Or a carbon fibre tripod. Or a bag. Or photography books. Or a printer. Or a monitor. Or.... Luckily there are plenty of stuff to buy while waiting for a new camera body!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line
« on: February 04, 2013, 02:12:33 AM »
14 /2.8 would be sweet. I like the photos I get from my samyang but at times AF is nice to have. But I have to admit it feels good when I get those great shots from my MF lens, because I know that I did it.

120 /2.0 OS would be useful

Then, although it should be put in sports segment, a 300 /2.8 OS or a 400 /4 OS.

a 1,7x extender would be nice. A bit longer than the 1,4x but with better optics than the 2,0x? OR... a extender zoom. 1x - 2x or something. Would be cool but since nobody has done it yet it is probably not a good idea.

What else...?

Lenses / Re: Lens Help..EF 28mm f1.8 any good?
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:32:17 AM »
My copy is great! I feel it is as sharp as my 35 /1.4 L. If not sharper (or perhaps it is just more contrasty wide open than the 35 L is). However, I don´t really like the 28mm focal length as much as 35 so I don´t use it very much. That said, I knew I wanted the 35 /1.4 L when I got the 28 /1.8 and I really should just have bought the 35 right away. It was a waste of money to get the 28 that I seldom use though it is great.

But it is really good and has a bad reputation that it does not deserve. A theory is that f/1.8 is so shallow DoF that it is easy to mistake an out of focus photo with an unsharp lens. Also you should be aware that 28mm is a "boring" focal length (but that can also be seen as a challange!)

Have not used it for startrails.

So my advice is... although it is a good lens, DON´T buy it. Save for the 24 L that you really want - substitutes will not make you happy and you will end up loosing money. Or buy a used 28.

This is one of the best questions asked in a long time. I come from film myself and started out with a 30D (140 000 exposures taken), 70-200 /4 L IS and 17-40 /4 L.

Now I have a 5D mkII and I am very happy with that camera.
As you have noticed, at low ISOs cameras these days all look great. As has been said, IQ differences comes into play in more extreme situations. But there are other things that matters to your final image and that is how lenses behave on each camera.

On a full frame camera the lenses behave as they used to do on film. That is, f/4 gives a rather short DoF (yes I know, focal length, subject/background distance). I think of it as f/4 on FF is approximately f/2.8 on crop. That means you get less DoF at the same apeture and framing. That also means that for portraits the FF has an advantage for bluring backgrounds, but APS-C has the upper hand on sharp landscape shots with everything in focus. You would think that you can stop the lenses down even on FF to get a large DoF and while you can do that, diffraction will set in earlier compared to APS-C (I think). You also get the greater compression of for instance the 85mm lens on FF compared to a 50mm lens on APS-C, giving more flattering portraits.

Also, the 650D has no AFMA so there is a chance of having to send camera and lenses to Canon to get them all adjusted for maximum sharpness. Sometimes that is important - the need for 100% focus is much greater whit the high resolutions we have today. It is much harder to get a 100% sharp photo with the 5D mkII compared to the 30D I think.

There are great wide angle lenses for both formats, but to get greater reatch the tele lenses get more expensive if you are unwilling to crop in post.

The autofocus of the 5D is more capable than the 650D making it more suitable for action.

To me another thing is important - larger and brighter viewfinder: this is a big plus to me! It´s easier to use and feels better after a long day of shooting. Also I like that I can use my 5D mkII with my mittens since I live in Sweden and I don´t stop photographing in the winter. I don´t want a smaller camera body.

So what do you need?
If you want to do portraits, extreme low light, more action, shallow DoF, adjust focus on your lenses? Keep the 5D.
If you want to do landscapes? Keep the 650D.
But yes, both cameras are capable and they both are great imagecreating mashines. The difference is in the format and how that affect the image, not really the image quality itself.

I hope this helps you.
And don´t forget how to use your tripod!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I love big gear
« on: January 27, 2013, 04:58:05 PM »
To me it is not a matter of big or small, or what "feels good" but I have to be able to operate the gear smooth. Change focal point fast, change ISO, shutter/apeture, AF-mode....
In mittens.
I live in sweden, november to february is glove time. Touchscreen? I don´t think so. Give me buttons I can feel through double layers of gloves or the camera is useless a few months a year.

I´ll carry what I have to carry. No problem. On family trips I just use fewer lenses.

I need a better beanie; got a brainfreeze last weekend from having the cold camera body pressed to my head a few hours in the early morning :)

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 26, 2013, 03:25:28 PM »
I shot with the FD-system 1999 to 2007 when I wanted to go digital SLR. Choise came to Canon because they had a cheap full frame camera (5Dc - although I got the 30D thinking I´d upgrade in the future) and the 70-200 /4 L IS. The 30D was a kick-ass camera, the 70-200 a kick-ass lens, the 17-40 L pretty ok but I knew it would be great on a FF later on. Nikon had nothing like that lens or the camera I really wanted, so it was a no brainer. And, as I still think, camera bodies are electronics and new models comes every 3 years. Lenses last way longer if you get quality stuff. So why worry too much about the body? In a few years we will have new mind-blowing bodies.

No regrets, I really really like my current gear and see no point whatsoever to change. Why? I´m not using all of the potential of my 5D mkII yet. Sometimes AF refuses to lock, but not that often. High ISO? Well, there are tripods and flashes so... often not a problem.

What is this lens?  I thought they already had a lens that was 120-300 2.8 with OS?   I have the 120-300 2.8 non OS and I know there was already a newer version out?   I'm very confused....

Same new version with a very few changes...

It seems likely for them to share the same optics, but do you know that for a fact or have you just heard it somewhere?

Also, from dpreview,
"With a new dust- and splash-proof design, this lens will also have a focus limiter, which incorporates inner focusing and zooming that does not require a change to the length of the lens for focus and zoom. Sigma and Canon mounts will be available in February, and Nikon mounts will arrive in March. For the full press release, click here. The 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM will be available for the street price of $3,599."

So it seems more weather sealed aswell, I like that for my agriculture photography.

Finaly! I have been waiting two years for this! Some one, hurry, give me a review!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'
« on: December 17, 2012, 02:51:49 AM »
Fist tip - get a few good books about photography. Works great by the fireplace.
Second tip - shoot some more and you will find what focal lengths you miss, or if you need faster lenses.

"I have a family, I take pics of them.  We go places, I take pictures when I go places.  So from a stills perspective, The only thing I have right now is a 60D kit lens and a 7D body and a battery.  Looking for a little 'christmas wish list' advice from some 7D owners."

It seems to me that you are thinking of changing camera body but that seems unwise to me. There is nothing wrong with your 7D and you seem to like it, so why change? My advice is to keep it and invest in some lenses, but to stay out of ef-s lenses even though they are great on the 7D. Why? Because you seem unceartain that you will keep shooting with the smaller sensor.

Ok, so for your family portraits; get fast primes. The greatest value is in the 50 /1.8 or /1.4; the 85/1.8 or 100/2 and 28/1.8 or 35 /2 (or sigma 30 /1.4).

For travel photography, stick with your 18-135. It´s quite nice stopped down a bit. I sold a few photos taken with that lens on a 30D just recently.

For landscapes one of the most important pieces of equipment is a tripod. You work stopped down and most lenses are sharp @f/8 - 11 anyway, meaning that you can use your 18-135. So get a tripod.

Start there, then shoot until you can not get further without new gear. By then you will know what gear you need and can start to buy more expensive stuff that you will not replace every 20 months. 

That said, the 10-22 is a great great lens (owned it) and from reviews the 17-55 or the 15-85 seems to be very good as well. The 15-85 could be considered a good choise if you want to upgrade your travel/landscape lens and you are going to continue shooting aps-c cameras, but I am not sure it is a good idea since you seem to hesitate on what format you want to be using (aps-c or FF)

Good luck!

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« on: December 11, 2012, 10:25:41 AM »
Also, perhaps a bit obvious, but the 135 gives more compression that might be a bit more flattering.
Even more obvious is the working distance, most people are not thrilled at a big lens up their nose. They seem to want some space, favouring the 135. On the other hand, in a smaller room the 100 might be more suitable.

50 or 85 mm can give more intimate portratist since go are forcing yourself into the models comfort zone. However then you might have issues with distortion.

It´s always a compromise no matter how much money you throw at your gear. That is why I like the gear-planning so much.

Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?
« on: December 11, 2012, 05:31:37 AM »
Primes, no doubt.

The cancake 40, the new 35 or a 100 /2.
Why? They are stealthier. Unless you want to develop a style of "people looking at your camera"-photography... L-zooms are too "loud".

Primes also makes you a better photographer since you have to try harder. It also make you better since you can skip all the images you can not capture and fokus on the ones you can capture - no need to think about what focal length you would want to use when you only have one! Yes, you will miss shots but you will find other shots that you would not have even seen with a zoom. Or at least that is how it is to me.

Also, the satisfaction in capturing a striking photo using the most boring of focal lengths is something else. When photographing at 50mm or 35mm you know its YOU that made the picture work, not the unusual focal lenght or other effect.

zooms are equal in most technical aspects but not in DoF - but in the streets it can be hard to get proper focus in a f/1.4 shot, so you may want to be at f/4 - f/8 anyway? But zooms are also larger, and that is why i think they should be avoided. Same goes for the large primes like 85 /1.2. Skip that and go for the above lenses.

Or a G1-X?

Anyway, good luck and have fun!

EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:46:19 AM »
Haha it seems many of us think alike.
I would miss (no particular order):

1. The big viewfinder with a better possibility to focus manually (I changed the focus screen or whatever it is called). I can look through my viewfinder for a long time without getting tired.

2. As Neuro said, the option go get really thin DoF. Although I do not use it unless I want that look, there is something that make your portraits pop when you use high quality ultra fast primes on a FF sensor. Not always suitable and sometimes hard to get right.

3. A twist of number 2 above is that on FF, f/4 gives rather thin DoF so the 70-200 /4 is in a way equivilent to the f/2.8 version, minus one stop extra light = pump the ISO if needed or use flash. Same goes for 17-40 instead of 16-35. That saves money and bulk.

4. Better wide angle. The samyang 14 is really really wide! Perhaps I should have gotten the sigma 12-24 instead but I´m pleased with the samyang.

Those are the most important differences for me. IQ is great on newer APS-C cameras aswell and depend on more than the camera. Of course the final image is mostly about idea and content anyway.

However, there is no reason to naturally want to get a FF camera. There is absolutely nothing wrong with APS-C and you can get great results. It depends on what you want to do. Right now I am investing in flashes, not cameras and lenses.
And yes, I do take much better photos now compared to when I was using my 30D. Why? Way more practise and more studying of photography on the net, books and videos, and more photographing friends/amateur models. Oh and selling photos is a great motivation to constantly improve my "products", the same goes for competing in my local camera club. Also... I have better lenses and light-equipment now.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6