Messages

31

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 09, 2012, 11:17:54 AM »

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but I keep coming across people posting wish lists and they all say they want a dedicated DSLR without video.

Personally I agree that having the capability broadens the appeal of the camera, which hopefully boosts sales and furthers R&D for future upgrades. Its a feature that Canon was able to add that only added a minimal cost to the Camera. I think the more cameras that Canon (or any camera company) sells, the more likely that prices will creep down, or rebates will be offered. And the more people who buy cameras and lenses the more likely that someone will be selling a good quality used lens or body that I can actually afford.

I think its cool to hear about videos that are shot with Canon DSLRs. I love when people push the limits and come up with new and creative ways to use their equipment.

32

EOS Bodies - For Video / Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 09, 2012, 10:33:32 AM »

I've been reading on this and other forums for quite a while, and I see a lot of hate coming from photographers who are upset that Canon and other manufacturers are including video capabilities in their DSLR's. I don't get how a camera being capable of recording still images AND video is a bad thing? Does it make you take worse pictures? I own a 40D and a 60D. We have used the video capability of the 60D exactly twice. I'm not a videographer, and I'm not really interested in shooting video. I have no interest in buying a video camera when I almost never shoot video, but I'm glad that I have a camera that's capable of it when I want it.
 
I'm not an engineer or an expert, but my basic understanding is that the capability to record video is primarily a software thing, and the only extra piece required is a mic or mic input. Magic Lantern software has enabled video on a 50D (albeit without a mic), which supports my understanding that it doesn't require any major changes or extras in the camera. I'm pretty sure that there's thousands of people capturing fantastic images on the 5Dii and other DSLRs that can shoot video. So unless there's something about video capable DSLRs that I'm completely missing, why the hate?

33

Lenses / Re: Canon 17-85mm vs. Tamron 17-50mm vs. Tamron 28-75mm

« on: February 07, 2012, 11:57:28 AM »

This may be a slightly old thread, and the OP may have made his decision, but since I currently own the first two lenses I'll chime in with my personal experience. Disclaimer: I'm only an amature photographer who loves to take pictures.

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. The image quality of this lens is great. The lens is light and easy to carry. The AF is quick but noisy, and in dim light it will often make 2-3 micro adjustments following the first autofocus movement. I've found that when using a flash the focus is sketchy, and the keeper rate goes down unless you're using only the center focus point. I don't like that the focus ring turns when autofocusing, and there is no full time manual focus. The zoom has just the right amount of dampening to make it smooth, without turning too easily. It has no gravity creep. Wide open you can get a pretty shallow depth of field, but the bokeh is not as smooth as high end zooms like the Canon 24-70. In general the lens is a great step up from a kit lens, and asside from a couple of quirks my wife and I have been quite happy with this lens.

The Canon 17-85 is a good lens, and was a huge step up from the 18-55 kit lens we had initially. On my 40D it works fine, but doesn't have nearly the low light capabilities of the Tamron. Its a good walk around lens, especially outdoors. I've found the autofocus with this lens to be fast, smooth and accurate. The only place that the AF searches is in really low light. Usually it will lock on, even in situations where its too dark to get a reasonable picture. I like that with the USM the AF ring doesn't turn while autofocusing. I have found that the zoom ring has loosened up quite a bit since we got the lens 2 years ago, to the point where it will gravity zoom in certain situations. This is my biggest compliant about my 17-85.

I don't have the Tamron 28-75, and have never used it, but a good friend of mine (who is a lot more serious photographer than me) had one for a while. He was always complaining about the autofocus of that lens. He said that his keeper rate for low light was well below 50%.

Between the two lenses that I have direct experience with, I think I would go with the Tamron. It is more flexible with the faster aperture, and I can overlook the loud AF. I think the image quality is better from the Tamron, and its slightly narrower and lighter to carry. I rarely miss the 50-85mm focal length, and I have a telephoto lens for those times when I want it. I hope this helps.

34

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: February 03, 2012, 06:22:15 PM »

On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.

I could be wrong about this, but my understanding of a candid photo is one that is captured in a moment, without being posed. I don't feel that just because the subject of the photo noticed and looked just before the picture was taken its not a candid shot.

I guess it's open to debate about what constitutes a candid photograph. My dictionary defines it as "(a photograph of a person) taken informally, esp. without the subject's knowledge." So I suppose there might be some overlap. But I tend to take the view that once the subject has awareness of / reacted to the camera then it's no longer candid. Don't know how I'd classify the photo of your son, he may have turned at the sound of your wife's voice, but his eyes locked onto the camera, not above it, or to the side as would be expected if he was looking at the person who was to calling him, demonstrating an awareness of the camera. Grey area is Grey.

Ah, well I appologize. If my picture offends you, I'll happily remove it for you. It was never my intention to offend anyone, I just wanted to share. My understanding of a candid photo was slightly different, and who am I to argue with Webster?

35

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: February 03, 2012, 04:48:11 PM »

On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.

I could be wrong about this, but my understanding of a candid photo is one that is captured in a moment, without being posed. I don't feel that just because the subject of the photo noticed and looked just before the picture was taken its not a candid shot.

I can't speak for any pictures but mine, but in the case of my photo I had just taken my family to a park to go for a winter walk along the river. My son had gotten out of the truck and was wandering around while my wife and I got our equipment out. I took out my camera to check my settings and focused on the only subject nearby (my son) as he was wandering towards the trail. My wife called him told him to wait causing him to turn just as I took the picture. If you think that's not candid, fine. But I think it is.

36

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: February 03, 2012, 11:58:06 AM »

Snapped this of my son on a nature walk. 40D, 70-200 F4L