Messages

16

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D3 vs 7D for birding thoughts

« on: April 03, 2012, 08:01:10 PM »

Two reasons for holding on to the 7D could include: 1) your desire not to spend a lot of time cropping mk iii images and 2) the ability to focus on your subject with the mk iii.  If your subject is too far away to accurately focus on it with the mk iii, cropping down to an out-of-focus bird serves no purpose.

In full disclosure, I have neither of your bodies, but it’s still a similar good crop body vs. better FF body discussion.

17

Lenses / Re: advice re lenses for travel photography

« on: April 02, 2012, 11:05:21 PM »

I would agree with the earlier post mentioning the 15-85.  The 17-55 is a better lens for low lighting, but the extra range of the 15-85 comes in handy when there’s not a lot of time to switch lenses.  For low lighting, the EF 50 f/1.4 is a solid lens, and is probably more suited for portraits on a crop body (I’m not a portrait guy, so follow this piece of advice with caution).  I’m pretty sure the 100-300L is discontinued, but the 70-300L is a good choice if you need something that long.  I took the 24-105L with my T3i on a recent trip to Egypt.  That was a big mistake as it was not wide enough for wide-angle shots.  That lens is really much more useful on FF cameras.

Regarding your comment about the G1X, I too have been looking at that camera.  I’m holding off on that one at the moment as the price point is at its pinnacle right now, at least here in the states.  In fact, I think one can get both the G12 and the EF 50 f/1.4 for the same price as the G1X.  I know there’s a big jump in technology from the G12 to the G1X, but the price difference is also significant.

18

Lenses / Re: 24-105 or prime lenses on 5D2 ?

« on: April 02, 2012, 07:58:30 PM »

There’s nothing wrong with opting for an all-prime line-up, but do consider that now that you’re moving to FF from APS-C, your crop factor goes away.  The images you saw on your 50mm lens on the 450D now will look like 80mm on the 5D ii.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: is the 40D still a good one for 400$

« on: April 01, 2012, 10:59:19 PM »

Well, please understand that what follows is only a surface-level comparison of the 40D vs. the 5D mk ii.  Using the mk ii’s image as the baseline, the 40D captures around 63% of that image due to the crop.  Given the quantity of pixels on each sensor, that’s 63% of the mk ii image with 48% of the pixels.  Never one to overemphasize pixels I compared the sensor area of the two cameras.  In that comparison, if my math is right the same 63% of the image is captured on 39% of the mk ii’s sensor area.  My evaluation criteria may be way off base, but those numbers tell me the cropped mk ii image should be better than the 40D image out of the camera.  If I’m looking at this incorrectly, I’ll be happy to learn something from this post.

20

Lenses / Re: Buy 60D with Pro Lenses or 5D with Kit Lens?

« on: April 01, 2012, 05:21:46 PM »

Any thoughts about going middle-of-the-road and getting the 5D mk ii kit?  That would give you FF plus a L lens for walk-around use and an extra $1,300 that could be used to get a 70-200 f/4 L IS or a 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS.  That's a pretty good combination.

21

EOS Bodies / Re: is the 40D still a good one for 400$

« on: March 31, 2012, 07:38:30 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 40D doesn't give "extra reach" compared with a 5D2. With the same lens, a cropped 5D shot will get the same (or better) effective resolution). In fact, doesn't the 5D2 have a greater "reach" than the 40D because it has twice the sensor resolution?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.  In the course of shooting a weeklong vacation or a half dozen spring training baseball games I’ll usually get about 1,000 images.  I simply don’t have enough time to devote to a lot of post-process activities.  Cropping down a few dozen images from FF would probably make sense.  I prefer to get the image I want from the camera rather than through post-production.

22

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Just got my 5DIII, should i keep 60D?

« on: March 31, 2012, 07:22:04 PM »

I did something similar with an old 20D, converting it to IR.

I’m a proponent of having a back-up camera.  The combination of FF and APS-C bodies will give you greater range with your lenses.  Don’t forget that the Canon extenders don’t work with every Canon L lens.  If you can turn the 60D into a lens that you wouldn’t be able to acquire otherwise, that might merit consideration, but I wouldn’t trade a 60D for an extender plus a little cash.

23

EOS Bodies / Re: is the 40D still a good one for 400$

« on: March 31, 2012, 06:49:37 PM »

I have to agree with what Brian said earlier in this thread.  IMHO the 40D is the highpoint of the xxD line, before Canon jumped into the megapixel war and added in non-still photography features.  I still get a good amount of use from mine.  I use it when I want extra reach from my lens kit and for some daytime shots (sort of like a reverse vampire, it only gets out when the sun is up).  The 40D has limitations with respect to lighting/ ISO, but employed in the right conditions the 40D is an excellent value at $400.

24

Lenses / Re: Walk around lens suggestion

« on: March 29, 2012, 09:29:01 PM »

With any lens that starts out below 20mm and ends up above 100mm, there’s a trade-off between range and image quality/ sharpness.  I have a Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and a Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD.  While those lenses would come close to the specs you’ve mentioned for range, image quality is average, at best.  If I had to choose between those two I would opt for the Tamron due to its longer range and smaller profile.

Having said that, the aforementioned 15-85 is a much sharper lens, but it doesn’t get you anywhere close to the range you want.  If you can get by with two lenses, you may want to pair the 15-85 with one of Canon’s 70-200 models.

25

Lenses / Re: Which Lens 24-70 mk1 or 24-105 kit lens for Canon 5d3 purchase

« on: March 29, 2012, 08:53:58 PM »

I think you’re spot-on with the thought of getting the kit lens plus a 50mm f/1.4.  Yes, the 24-105 may be a bit slow, and IS doesn’t compensate for fast-moving subjects (kids).  But the 50 f/1.4 will take care of that.  At 55mm on a crop body you are accustomed to seeing what would be 88mm with a full-frame body.  So with the 24-70 you’re losing 18% of the reach you currently have.

26

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 F4 IS or F2.8 (non IS)?

« on: March 29, 2012, 08:14:41 PM »

The IS on the f/4 would only be of use if your subject is static, which wouldn’t apply to most aspects of sports photography.  The f/2.8 will allow for better shots with low lighting and more DOF with good lighting.  On a recent baseball spring training outing I took my 35-350L for daytime shots and my 70-200L f/2.8 for evening games.  My 70-200L f/4 IS didn’t make the trip.  Weight is a subjective issue, so it’s hard to comment on that one.

As you should be able to shoot at very high ISO on the Mk III and IS will be of limited use in sports photography, would you have any thoughts of going with the non-IS version of the f/4?

27

Lenses / Re: what is the quality of lenses that are not manufactured by canon?

« on: March 29, 2012, 07:55:55 PM »

I’ve purchased a half dozen or so Tamron or Sigma lenses over the years.  Generally I’ve gotten what I paid for, although the 3rd party manufacturers do seem to get more complaints about quality control.  The only issue I’ve had is that as my image standards have increased, my satisfaction with my 3rd party lenses has deceased, but I suppose one could say that about any sub-$500 lens.

To get a comparable lens to the Canon 18-135 at a lower price, you’re probably going to have to forgo Image Stabilization, which could be a significant loss.

28

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Shooting professional sports (NHL) with a DSLR - access denied!

« on: March 29, 2012, 05:43:27 PM »

I wanted to resuscitate this topic for a couple reasons.  First, I had no issue visiting most of the AZ Spring Training sites this year with my 5Dii/ 40D bodies (both with battery grips) and my 35-350L.

The second part of this post is a question about what the optimum camera would be for sporting events if the non-interchangeable lens camera restrictions become more prevalent.  My preference would likely be the G1X, cropping down in post-process, rather than one of the mega zooms.  But I have no experience with the G1X and almost none with the mega zooms.  I’m assuming I will be at least 150 feet from my subjects, and most of these events will take place with sufficient artificial lighting for television.

29

Lenses / Re: New 70-200 f4L USM ???

« on: March 13, 2012, 12:48:24 AM »

If Canon introduced a replacement I’m not sure who would buy it unless they kept the price point about the same.  At $600, the lens is nicely priced.  But add $200-300 to the price tag and folks will just jump to the more advanced models.  Canon could add weather sealing, but the IS version already exists.  And, as an earlier post states, it’s a great lens.

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Equipment for landscape & travel photography - advice needed please!

« on: March 13, 2012, 12:22:18 AM »

As Nuero stated, your 24mm is actually 31mm.  You will wind up with a lot of partial subjects with that.  Since you have several weeks to get your hands on a 5D mk II, I’d look into that route, and try to find one at a better price than you’ve mentioned.  You will find that the kit you have now will work very well with landscape images on FF.  I can’t speak to the weather sealing issue in that part of the world, but my experience has been that gear is most susceptible to the environment when changing lenses.  You’re likely to run into that if you buy a fifth lens, especially a narrow band zoom like a 16-35 or a 17-40.  I’m not sure what the price spread will be in the UK between the 5D mk II and mk III, but in the states the price increase of 60% for the mk III likely means that the secondary market for the mk II won’t be hurt that badly by the mk III’s introduction should you decide to part with the mk II upon your return.