March 04, 2015, 11:56:51 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 - Synomis192

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
Me and my T1i cry at anything above ISO 400 usually, but really, you can't avoid noise completely even with the best cameras for dim lighting indoor shoots. I doubt whoever is going to be receiving the prints are going to scrutinize the images to tell you how it's not super sharp, or how noisy the images are.

And thing is, with the speedlight giving good light to your subject, you're not going to see much noise at all, only the darker background and shadows would have some grain at 400 but nobody's looking there except you. Here's a shot I did recently, Canon T1i 430EX ISO 400 1/60, 16mm @ F4 with no de-noise .
Where's that noise? I'd say safe to shoot at ISO 800 and push exposure in post if necessary

It's okay, my t1i and I shall join your crying party haha. But you're right, noise is something that bothers me and only me apparently. To my friends I scrutinize anything that looks grainy from 2 ft away. I just feel like bumping the ISO would lose that canon saturation, sharpness and shadows. Cant help it though so ISO 400/800 all night woo! Btw very nice and cute shoot. I'm going to take a extremely wild guess that your family is making green tea... Or some sort of tea haha

I'm being dubbed as the party photographer for some friends and they're expecting images that are printable. I'm not talking about like 16x20 canvas print. Just like normal 4x6s and the occasional 8x10 enlargements.

I'll be bringing my 17-35mm and 50mm. Along side that I'll have my speed light attached the whole night. I've been practicing around my house taking sample photos. I want to shoot at f/8 but I also want to keep the ISO low but my flash fires at full output every time. Is it safe to bring the ISO up to about 400 without having grainy images?

Any thoughts on how to capture a moment without actually having to interrupt it?

Basically, I'm asking tips on how to be a casual photographer who takes great shots at parties without seeming like that one"photographer" that run around with a kit lens and their popup flash and act like they're Scott Kelby, Ansel Adams, or Chase Jarvis. (I'm not saying people like that are all horrible but they kind of give a negative outlook on photography now.)

Lenses / Re: Are Lens Hoods Universal?
« on: October 26, 2012, 04:15:05 AM »
1- Well it's a kind of compromise, but if you take a zoom like the 24-105 the hood needs to be designed to avoid vignetting with shortest focal, but the trade off is, the shading will be poor with longer ones. Just have a look how the hood for the 135mm f2L looks like, it's the opposite of a wide angle hood.

2- If it fits snuggly, it's a kind of positive, since you won't lose the hood in action. Check if the hood leaves marks on the Tamron's bayonet, it's up to you to feel to what extend some damage could be made to the lens, but I wouldn't be too worried, as you say, if the glove fits....

3- No I never use protecting filters, but this is my personal choice. Of course for shooting in salt spray near the sea or with heavy rain you would add protection to the lens. IMO, a hood is enough for protection of the front lens, considering you are a bit careful. It all depends on your style of shooting, if you carry your camera all day long around your neck, and so on.

In any case, if you want to use a filter for protection, then you should use excellent ones, UV or neutral type. B&W is the only brand I can recommend without hesitation, though there are other.

Problem is when you buy high quality glass, it's a bit unfair to add an average filter. Most know problems are :

- improper surfacing of the filter, where the two sides are not perfectly parallel
- surface coating that will seldom match the quality of the coating of your lens
- possibility of colour shift with some filters (the common pink skylight), but even some UV filters are not so neutral, you should put the filter on a piece of white paper, to check for any colour shift.

I've had dozen of lenses for 25 years, never used a protective filter (but always a hood) and never had a problem. I am careful, but if you think the risk of damaging the front lens is too high, then a filter might add some peace of mind. Please just invest in a GOOD one.

1. Now I'm getting this idea about the whole minimum focal length being the most important on lens hoods Haha

2. Yeaaaah, personally I love the fact that the ew-83w fits like a glove. It's so satisfying that I know for a fact that it would be hard for me to lose this hood without having the camera physically break haha. Ps. I tried out the ew-83h like you told me to and thanks so much for saving me a load of money :) it fit, but it fot too well that i ended up forcing it and shaving part of the hood of hana. and it didn't look as cool as it did as the ew-83w

3. I'm looking into investing in a BW filter but it's just too out of my budget. Maybe when I do spend <$500 on a lens I'll jump to buy some extra protection for it. Haha for now, I think shooting without a lens filter is good. I compared with and without the filter and found that the shots with the filter were warmer. Maybe shooting without a uv filter will teach me to be more careful about how I handle expensive equipment.

Thanks a lot symmar you've been a great help.

Lens hood mountings are far from universal.  There are different methods of attaching them to different lenses, so diameter is not the only factor.
As to threaded ones, its kind of difficult to put a lens cap on a lens with a hood threaded on it.  I have a rubber hood which includes a filter which is permanently attached, so you can screw hood and filter on and still attach a cap.

That's a bit disappointing. But hey it makes the companies happy. I just wish that third party manufacturing cared more about the function not the price

Lenses / Re: Are Lens Hoods Universal?
« on: October 24, 2012, 11:53:22 AM »
They are actually expensive, because this is the kind of accessories where brands make a LOT of money (in Europe, Canon ET-73 for the 100mm macro is sold around 40 Euro, costing probably 1 or 2 Euro out of the factory), as you are likely to loose or break it, this is a good source of money.

Part of the reason why there is also a roaring eBay trade in third party replica Canon hoods.

Well sure there are third party brands but do they hold up against canon's build quality? I mean their hoods are pretty well made. Hell their hood for the nifty fifty has a metal mount. Canon hoods also have that felt like material on the inside of their hoods. It's good quality but that price doesnt really justify its true value.

What is the correct white balance for photos? Like what's natural and unnatural looking. How can you determine if the whites are truely white and the colors are really the colors that are actually the real colors? And does white balance really matter if I'm shooting raw since corrections on PP are available?

It's subjective.  Some prefer warmer tones, others cooler, depending on the shot.  People are used to warner light indoors, so sometimes truly accurate WB under tungsten looks cold. 

WB doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW, as far as the image goes.  There is a possible indirect effect if you use the review image/histogram to judge and change exposure, since the review image/histogram are based on the in-camera jpg conversion (even for RAW) and too warm a WB may show as saturation of some colors that really aren't, and you may choose to underexpose a bit because of that.

If you want accurate, shoot a white balance target (SpyderCube, WhiBal, etc.) or a gray card, and use that to set the WB during RAW processing.  If you want complete color accuracy, use something like an X-rite ColorChecker Passport.

Wow, thanks for that fast reply neuro. I kind of understand white balance now. I'll look into grabbing a white balance target. I've read somewhere that RAW isn't actually an image file it's something else. It was in Scott kelby's book I think.

Ps, Yknow, You're so cool your nick name should be Tugg (since.. Yknow. Tungsten is cool... Tugg... Cool? No? Okay?)

Lenses / Re: Are Lens Hoods Universal?
« on: October 24, 2012, 08:35:20 AM »
My opinion about your questions :

1- Universal lens hood do exist, but the are most of the time dedicated to standard or tele lenses, since wide angles, due to their angle of view require hoods calculated for each lens. These universal hoods are generally screw type, so you can use them easily with a 50mm or tele lens, but with wide angles, the risk of vignetting is much too important, adding a filter is just impossible without strong vignetting.

Hoods for trans-standard zoom are not very efficient in general since they must be calculated for the shortest focal to avoid vignetting, hence the poor performance at longer focal setting. One exception I know is the 24-70mm f2.8 L (Model 1), where the lens is extending inside the hood with zooming, a clever system for shading since you have the best coverage for every focal length.

Wide angle hoods performance is all relative, since they must by definition be wide and short, that is in contradiction with efficient shading. As I am mainly working with a tripod, I tend not to trust the hood for perfect shading. Even with the longer ones, I use a piece of cardboard to shade the lens further, in order to limit flare as much as possible.

2- Fact that the Canon hood is fitting on the Tamron is either luck or the sign that Tamron copied the Canon bayonet type mount. Problem is every brand has its own bayonet style for the hood, so finding a different brand than fits your lens is try and error. On the other hand, now you know Canon hoods fit mechanically your lens, you have some wider choice, considering you can find a lot of 3rd party hoods for Canon for cheap (just have a look on eBay).

3-About the availability of dedicated hoods, I would tend to think that in the past lots of people have underestimated the usefulness of hoods, and that hoods were mainly accessories for advanced photographers. It is still common to see people with decent lenses with no hood and a cheap Skylight filter on the front lens. My guess is that some people see them as useless, bulky and expensive.

They are actually expensive, because this is the kind of accessories where brands make a LOT of money (in Europe, Canon ET-73 for the 100mm macro is sold around 40 Euro, costing probably 1 or 2 Euro out of the factory), as you are likely to loose or break it, this is a good source of money.

IMO a hood and NO filter is the best option to preserve IQ and protect your lens, since the hood acts as a bumper and can save your filter thread and limit fingerprints in the same time.

Since you shoot cropped, the EW-83H could be the solution, but still I would advise to try it before you buy it.

1. Really? I didn't know that lens hoods are ment to properly shade the shortest focal length. I thought that they were ment to properly cover the correct focal length of the lens. That 24-70mkI hood is genius though. I was able to test drive one and boy I was having fun. Outdoors in San Diego, I literraly had to point the lens to the sky to actually see some lens flare. Why didn't canon make the same hood system for the 24-70mkii boggles my mind -_-

2. To be honest, I think it's a sign of both. But the hood does screw on quite tightly so I may be forcing my luck. But hey, if the glove fits, why fix it? (lol I think that statement is right, I could be combining two different statements)

3. That statement is very true and very sad at the same time. I have quite a lot of "photographer" buddies that I shoot with and they constant badger me for getting a lens hood for my kit lens when they're running around shooting their 15-85mm and 10-24mm with no hoods AND no filters. They're really asking for it. And once their glass cracks and theyre waiting in line at the emergency room (aka Canon Service Center in Irvine) I will constantly badger them for having to spend a lot of money to repair their lens :)
Also interesting you say no filter though. Do you not believe that a good filter will help at all? I keep mine on because I don't think tamron can repair this lens if (knocking on wood) something bad were to happen.

I can't believe the number of people I see walking around with their hoods reversed.  It's for storage, people!

+1, add a good "no brand" pinkish skylight and you have a winning combination ;D

... I have a no-brand skylight on my lens :( in my defense though, it came with it.

LOL I just realized my 3rd photo has both a reversed hood AND a no brand filter

It's the winning combo! What's my prize? :D

After purchasing a non-mfg lens, I've noticed that a lot of my photos have become warmer. I kind of preferred the cool blue color of my kit lens but it's not too bothersome. I've noticed that my camera has something called wb shift/bkrt option. After playing around with the menu, I'm still a bit confused about white balance in general.

What is the correct white balance for photos? Like what's natural and unnatural looking. How can you determine if the whites are truely white and the colors are really the colors that are actually the real colors? And does white balance really matter if I'm shooting raw since corrections on PP are available?

Lenses / Are Lens Hoods Universal?
« on: October 24, 2012, 05:48:51 AM »
I posted on the forum here recently about having a Canon lens hood on a Tamron lens. No one replied (lol I wasn't expecting anyone to really) So I gave it a shot, I bought an aftermarket EW-83E Lens hood, the one compatible with the Canon 17-40mm f/4L. I bought it thinking that since they both have the same diameter lens and the same focal length, it should work on it and what do you know, IT WORKED!

EDIT: Sorry forgot to describe the hood
It feels alright, flimsy plastic, not fabricated like the actual lens hood. It's actually a very tight fit so I keep it on the right why, even when putting it in my bag because I don't want the thread to file down or something. It doesn't do a good job with flares though. That's why I'm opting out for the EW-83H :D

Now, I'm going to buy the Canon EW-83H (correct me if i'm wrong but it's the Canon hood for the 24-105 f/4L) Because I feel like this hood doesn't really do anything for flare, and since I'm shooting cropped I won't vignette.

My Question is, why are there no lens hoods that are marketed as universal lens hoods? I know there are screw on lens hood that are seen as "universal" but they don't work do they. So why can a Canon Lens hood fit onto a Tamron lens, and why doesn't a third market party create a very functional (stylish if possible) lens hood? Canon replacement hoods are extreme expensive and Tamron hoods are hard to find.

Ps. I've attached some pics to show that it does work :D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 14, 2012, 05:56:22 AM »
As the owner of the 24/50/135L prime trinity, I can say its the most practical setup I've ever used.

But if you don't have the cash, I would do this setup


28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
100mm F/2

I can do 90% of all my work with those 3 lenses.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll just start saving now to reach a combo that is worthy of being unholy haha. Is the jump from 50mm to 100mm going to make me miss some shots?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 10, 2012, 11:15:19 PM »
I'm currently using an unholy trinity with my 7d.

20mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

The USM AF on the 7d is excellent. It's not a huge hit on the wallet either.

ooooh, how well does the 20mm perform on your 7D? I'm pretty interested in that lens haha

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 10, 2012, 05:11:34 PM »
For FF:
EF 40/2.8 STM
EF 85/1.8 USM
Σ 150/2.8 HSM Macro

For crop:
EF 28/1.8 USM or Σ 30/1.4 HSM
Σ 50/1.4 HSM
EF 100/2.8USM Macro

So, I'm guessing that you aren't recommending any prime wide angles on a FF camera  because they suck haha. I'd be better off getting an ultra-wide variable zoom (ex. 17-40mm or 12-24mm) and a collection of primes?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?
« on: October 10, 2012, 05:05:28 PM »
I've only taken my 5D out in low light a few times since I bought it a few weeks ago.  My camera shows banding at 3200, and some noise (with no obvious patterning) at 1600 and 800.  The 800 and 1600 noise is pretty easily correctable in DPP (I always shoot raw), but the 3200 requires the slider to move further than I'm accustommed to and results in blurring of details easily visible at 50%.  Overall, I'm very happy with my 5Dc.  I did miss the extra 'reach' of my previous cameras (XT, XTi, 30D) when I went to a baseball game last week (front row, right field line, ~50 ft beyond 1st base), but I can always buy longer lenses in the future, or crop when necessary.

Glad to know that RAW files are handled well using PP. I still don't know how to use NR setting correctly though, is there a certain value that you use when you use NR levels?

Interestingly enough, I was reading your gear list on your sig, you have the same lenses. On a side note, how well does the 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 work on a 5Dc. I think that's my go to EF lens for now once I upgrade that is.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Future of APS-C
« on: October 10, 2012, 05:00:43 PM »
Is there a point where an APS-C camera can have the low noise performance like a 5DmkIII? I understand the limitation of an APS-C sensor, smaller sensor=less light to work with. But do you think in the near future there will be a low-light APS-C King?

I think I'm specifically talking about Canon though, Nikon has a reputation for having good low light performers. Never had a real first hand experience with it though?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 09, 2012, 05:16:33 AM »
It's not that bad if you stay away from high contrast areas and dont shoot wide open. plus the 100 f2 suffers much the same plight as its essentially exactly the same lens just 15mm longer. In any case I think the reason it gets recommended is two fold.  First price, relatively cheap. Second it's a good fl on both crop and ff. on crop 100mm could get a little long, and on ff you're probably more likely to buy the 135L than a 100.

So what you're saying is that if I'm really considering getting a 100mm f/2, I'd be better off getting an 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L? If that's the case, I think I'll try that combo one day when I'm older and more wiser about photography. (and when my budget allows some guilt less spending haha)

My trio + 1
These are the only non L Primes I have.  Don't use them much, but occasional for walk-around.

15mm Fisheye
40mm 2.8 Pancake
50mm 1.8 Nifty Fifty
85mm 1.8 (Needs a nickname  ;D )

I also have one additional non-L... but it's a specialty lens
MP-E 65mm 1-5X Macro

All the rest are "L's"

What is the MP-E 65mm? Is that strictly a macro lens that is super special? haha

and for the nickname of the 85mm. How about the Sassy Glass? Seeing that DXOmarks show that the 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best canon prime lenses to have that's not an L glass? I dunno. It's 2:00am here. I need sleep. x]

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?
« on: October 09, 2012, 05:11:38 AM »
Do your part as a photographer and you can get great result like these I've had with my 5Dc.

No one can bash this cameras IQ. Its solid all the way up to its limit of 3200.

Pic 1 - ISO 50

Pic 2 - ISO 800

Pic 3 - ISO 3200 (Limit)

Wicked photos man. Those photos are cleaner than a maid's quarters. I'm really impressed with the low light performance of the body. You know, I just recently learned a lot about photography that I didn't know. I now know how to use a speedlight correctly. What i mean is that I know about 2nd Curtain firing, I finally understand what stops are haha. Hopefully I know a lot more stuff about photography once I get my hands on a 5Dc.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8