August 20, 2014, 02:38:26 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 - jon_charron

Pages: 1 [2] 3
16
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:33:01 PM »
I'd like to recommend that some people open up their minds a little as to what people will and will not add to their kits. I added the EF 24-70 f/4L IS to my kit to replace my EF 24-105mm f/4L. What? How can this be? Why would anyone...? A few reasons. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter. I shoot almost exclusively landscape, so I'm stopped down. As soon as I hit f/8 on my 24-70, it's sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length. I carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS in my kit, so I have 70-105 covered by a lens that is also sharper than the 24-105 at every corresponding focal length. The 24-70mm gives me the ability to take macro shots while I'm carrying a two lens kit on backcountry trips. And yes, they are macro shots. Don't knock the feature until you take a look at some of the images. Is it as good as my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS? Heck no. Is it taking macro shots that are good enough to print/publish/sell? Heck yes. Unlike, the reviewer, I haven't noticed any focus shift with mine. Bottom line, if ounces count, which they typically do for landscape photographers, this lens is much more attractive that the 24-105mm. I chose the Canon system in 2005 almost exclusively because of the f/4L zoom line. This lens is a great addition to that line and an excellent alternative to the 24-105mm (which I've hung onto for single-lens trips).

Sorry if this has been addressed later in the thread as I haven't finished reading, but can you post some pics taken with the 24-70?  I'm very interested to see a few and would greatly appreciate this. 

17
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:19:40 PM »

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

Hahahaha!  Awesome.   ;D

18
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:23:36 AM »
I think you completely misunderstand how full frame works.

Hi Radiating.  I appreciate the very thorough explanation! :)

I do not "completely misunderstand how full frame works" in that I do understand the relationship of DOF when it comes to just DOF...what is in focus with the same lens, crop vs. FF. 

This is most apparent in video, and why FF and the 5D II changed the film world - the ability to blow out backgrounds and create that super thin DOF "look."  I have also experienced focus pullers on set having problems with DOF that was too thin, and resulting footage that looked properly focus on the lcd screen but turned out to be soft when viewed at 1080p. Disaster. This is why I would always use the 7D over the 5D.  It was more forgiving for focus if the puller was a bit out or the talent moved or swayed or slightly missed the mark, and at f2.8 still allowed shooting in fairly low light. 

OTOH, now I'm more experienced with pulling focus myself and in selecting DP's, and plan (hopefully tomorrow) to buy a FF body instead of another crop.  Having 2.8 and the option to go with shallow DOF compared to what is available at f4 would be nice.  Suffice it to say that I would still prefer a 2.8 IS in a comparable range if it was available. If I want to buy a crop body or dedicated video rig later (like a c100/c300, BMCC or Scarlet), having the 2.8 would also be desirable to get the DOF down and keep the light transmission up.  Naturally, IS for video is also a huge benefit in all ways.  But I digress.  This was a photography question, and I recognize that at some point, I may need to buy a 17-55 2.8 for the crop sensor dedicated rig I buy that will be s35.  That lens cannot be used on the 6D.

The rest of the info about light and angles and stuff is all new to me, and I thank you for that.  I'm going to read it one more time to let it sink in a bit better :)

19
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 07, 2013, 12:55:09 AM »
I think the point was to show how good an image can look at ISO 6400.  It's the difference in getting a shot and not, but IMO is more of a sports scenario or where the moment is what counts, rather than a nature photo, unless of course it's come rare specimen, rarely photographed.  In any case, it's not the type of photographic problem I'm trying to solve and for which I started this thread.  Still interesting, but not very relevant for me outside of comparing it to a ISO 6400 image from the 7D.

20
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 06, 2013, 11:31:06 PM »
I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour.

That's the point.  Sensor size does not affect exposure.  Shooting at 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on APS-C, if you switch to f/4 and keep 1/1600 s and ISO 3200, you'll have half as much light per unit area hitting the sensor.  Same would be true with the teeny sensor on my PowerShot S100. 

What sensor size does affect is the amount of noise at a given ISO.  So compared to 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on the 7D, you could shoot the FF camera at 1/1600 s, f/4, ISO 6400 and have lower image noise (better IQ) or you could shoot at 1/3200 s, f/4, ISO 12800 and have similar IQ to the 7D shot at f/2.8, ISO 3200 - i.e., a faster shutter speed with the slower lens and equivalent IQ.

Here's a shot with one of one of those 'bigger f/4 lenses' at dusk on an overcast day, FF camera and ISO 6400.  Same shot on a 7D would be unusably noisy (and in this case, f/2.8 isn't an option...). 


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM, 1/250 s, f/4, ISO 6400


Wow, great photo! It's amazing that is ISO 6400...that setting is completely unusable on the 7D, even in relatively good light. I was just replying to someone the other day who proclaimed that the notion that small pixels increase noise is a "myth"...I'd love them to see this photo. It kind of proves my point...higher noise with smaller pixels is most certainly not a myth....there just isn't enough light per pixel to compare to something like the 1D X (assuming similar framing, anyway...although even with a center crop on the 1D X and a full frame with the 7D, downsampling won't completely mitigate the higher noise of the 7D's smaller pixels.)

I would actually be curious to know if you pushed ISO even higher, 12800, whether that would saturate the sensor more, and with a little post-process pullback, might actually result in less visible noise...

It is a great photo, but (with all due respect to Jon) iris noisy, grainy, and soft. I'm not sure how you don't see that.


That's not my photo.  I think it's a 6400 ISO shot from neuroanatomist.

Here is one of mine of a Pelican. This is a very small, fairly low res jpeg uploaded to my blog which resizes and messes with the resolution of the photos.  The clean jpeg is MUCH sharper.  It was taken with a 7D and a 70-200 2.8 IS L II shot at 200/f2.8 @ 1/1600th I believe and maybe 640 ISO using a Better Beamer.


21
Lenses / Re: Duplicate APS-C and 17-55 2.8 IS in Full Frame?
« on: March 06, 2013, 09:35:09 PM »
That said, using a flash I'd say you hardly need any kind of IS unless you're dragging your shutter way slow (which it looks like you're doing), but the subjects you are hitting with the flash will still be in pretty good exposure due to having a relative ton of light being reflected back to the sensor compared to the surroundings.

So if you're really concerned, go for the Canon 24-70 v2, otherwise I'd rent the Tamron and try it out. You'll find it's quite heavy actually, although I believe the 24-70 v2 is pretty heavy as well.

Yes.  Dragging the shutter and shooting rear curtain at Events.  Using more light is not the answer.  I want the ambient to expose and not be affected much by flash and all but very near the lens to stay in motion and be blurry.

Well, as I said, IS doesn't seem as important for this situation. You're moving the lens anyway, so with IS on it'll attempt to compensate for that.

Trust me.  It's important.  The difference is quite remarkable. :)

22
Lenses / Re: Duplicate APS-C and 17-55 2.8 IS in Full Frame?
« on: March 06, 2013, 09:02:19 PM »
another thing i thought of was do you really need the zoom?

Yes.  What zoom does in a constant aperture lens like the 17-55 is allow you to set your camera exposure and flash output manually for the room, then use the zoom to frame while trying to maintain the same distance to the subjects you want to capture.  You can also fine tune that by how you hold the flash, and in my case, the bounce attachment I use.  I'm usually bending it and shaping it with my teeth if I need to widen or intensify light. :)

If that doesn't work I move closer or farther or if it's a drastic change, I change the exposure slightly - first by changing the shutter because it's fastest and at my finger tips, and then if necessary, bump the flash a bit up or down.  I try not to mess with the ISO and aperture much and need to keep the shutter reasonably show to get the looks I want.  When I'm working, this all happens very fast and I can sneak in and out and get candid shots very easily.  Even if I need a second shot to adjust, I can usually bounce out before people really start to pose.  I don't have any others uploaded but I'll look to see a better example.  IS is indeed a MUST.  At least for me.  I'll see how the ISO plays, but having better ISO and lower noise is something I'll want to take advantage of if possible.  It would suck to just crank it up and get what I had before, but I'll take that if it's all I can get. 

23
Lenses / Re: Duplicate APS-C and 17-55 2.8 IS in Full Frame?
« on: March 06, 2013, 08:52:59 PM »
That said, using a flash I'd say you hardly need any kind of IS unless you're dragging your shutter way slow (which it looks like you're doing), but the subjects you are hitting with the flash will still be in pretty good exposure due to having a relative ton of light being reflected back to the sensor compared to the surroundings.

So if you're really concerned, go for the Canon 24-70 v2, otherwise I'd rent the Tamron and try it out. You'll find it's quite heavy actually, although I believe the 24-70 v2 is pretty heavy as well.

Yes.  Dragging the shutter and shooting rear curtain at Events.  Using more light is not the answer.  I want the ambient to expose and not be affected much by flash and all but very near the lens to stay in motion and be blurry.

24
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 06, 2013, 08:19:51 PM »
One of the regulars here -- sorry, I don't remember which one -- often makes the point that the 24-105 on full frame is superior in every way to the 17-55 on a crop. It's wider and longer, you can get a shallower depth of field, and you get less noise.

Every way but one...you lose the f/2.8 high precision center AF point.  A very worthwhile trade, IMO.

I wonder how that will effect the ability for the 24-105 at f4 to focus quickly on a face in very low light with the 6D?  Does the 6D not offer a precision center focus point that will work with this lens at f4??

25
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 06, 2013, 08:17:31 PM »
Well if you must have 2.8 and IS in a FF compatible mid range zoom you have only one choice, it's the tamron. I own it, is it perfect?  No, but what lens is?  For what you spend its fantastic.  You can spend an awful lot more for maybe a 10% iq improvement with the canon 24-70ii but you lose IS and a cool grand in the process. considering what you posted you shoot I don't see your clients really caring too much. After all anything you give them is a thousand times better than the millions of (insert any modern smartphone here) pictures they have been taking and adding crappy Instagram filters to.

Those aren't my clients, and at a professional event or wedding reception, I need something sharp.  Those are unretouched low-res jpegs, but they are pretty sharp RAW out of the camera considering the style.  They would not have been near as good with an inferior lens.  The 17-55 is sharp, and I strive for sharp images and to own sharp glass.  I have tried a 24-70L II on a 5D II at a wedding with a flash, and I struggled to get the same kind of shots, especially as easily as I did with my 7D and the 17-55 2.8 IS.  Again, some of that may have been the 5D II's inability to focus as sell in low light, but IS had plenty to do with it. 

I'm not afraid to spend money on glass.  I had several L lenses.  If the 24-70II would work for me, I would gladly pay the dough to get one.  And I'd pay even more again for IS.   In the end I'll likely need to get another 17-55 anyway, as I plan to get C100/300, BMCC or Scarlet by summer, but a 17-55 won't fill the need of event photography if my body is the 6D or 5D iii.  I'll try the 24-105L as a good compromise and sell it or keep it as a video only lens if I have to.

26
Lenses / Re: Duplicate APS-C and 17-55 2.8 IS in Full Frame?
« on: March 06, 2013, 08:03:02 PM »
Ummmm I dont quite think you understand the concept of DOF here flash and DOF are two completely mutually exclussive aspects. ie flash has precisely zero effect on DOF. DOF is a function of the lens and sensor the flash simply provide light for the exposure.

I understand DOF and the fact that a FF sensor has thinner DOF than crop with same lens.  I think I am misunderstanding the relationship between flash and DOF, but after years of taking photos, my recollection  is that flash will bring slightly more into focus than without it.  Could be wrong.  I admit I switched to a crop back about 6 years ago and have done most of my shooting with that, but even my 35mm film days I recall a flash bringing more into focus.  I know the flash stops action and brings the subject into focus, so I'm thinking my mind is fooling me in the light's relationship to DOF. :)

In any case, I'm not concerned about DOF.  2.8 on FF and a flash should be fine for this kind of photography.  I'll still have my subjects plenty in focus, and I can always turn it to f4 if DOF is too thin.  If f4 is the only option in the Canon line, then hopefully that works.  If not, I'll sell it and try the Tamron.  For video, that thinner DOF a 2.8 provides would be much more valuable.  I wish Canon made a wide zoom L lens that was 2.8 IS or faster.

27
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 06, 2013, 05:03:03 PM »
Nice images BTW.  :)

Thanks.

Yes I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.  I understand the ISO and FF sensor issue, but an example would be shooting BIF with a 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200/2.8 vs. 70-200 f4 IS at 200/4.  Even tried a 500 f4 on a FF.  I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour. 

28
Lenses / Re: Duplicate APS-C and 17-55 2.8 IS in Full Frame?
« on: March 06, 2013, 03:46:50 PM »
It depends on what your budget is.  The most affordable way is to get the 24-105 with 6D kit.  The 24-105 will most likely match the DOF and range that you were used to with the 17-55.  The 24-105 would give you slightly shallower DOF because it's paired with a larger sensor. 

If you can afford more, a step up on the lens side would be the Tamron 24-70 VC.  The Tamron would give you markedly shallower DOF at f/2.8 and give you less noise headroom than the crop camera.

I was just checking that lens out online.  I have to say that I could only get the shots I've shown consistently with the lens at 2.8.  Going up to f4 made a huge difference and was not really an option.  DOF is not a concern for this type of shooting, especially since flash will punch out the DOF anyway.  My concern with the Tamron is well...it's a Tamron, but also the focus speed and accuracy (which I've heard is not great). It's also supposed to be very heavy, which if the other factors are good, I can live with.  I shoot most these using one hand, camera in the right and flash in the left with a hacked flash snyc cable and an RJ45 cable to make it a bit longer.  The only time I use two hands is to quickly change the zoom to frame, and the rare but necessary occasion that I want to zoom while shutter is open.  I was really hoping Canon would finally come out with the 24-70 2.8 IS L, but no.  They had to introduce that stupid, redundant 24-70 f4 IS, but that is another thread. :)

Forgot to mention, I'm not really worried about the cost of the lens, and yes the 6D is one of the bodies I'm looking at.  I would get the kit lens, but I don't think it will work for me at F4.

29
Lenses / Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 06, 2013, 03:21:59 PM »
I'm going to a full frame camera and starting over with glass after a theft.  I do photos and video, so the 17-55 2.8 IS has been my most widely used lens (with my former 7D body).  Photography wise, I have used it extensively for event photography.  For instance, in clubs and low light events like wedding dances, I use second curtain sync flash at 2.8 and shutter speeds as low as 1.5-0.5 second range.

The 2.8 and the IS mode are equally important in this case, and have allowed me to do some great shots I couldn't really duplicate easily with any other full frame combo I know of.  Since I sometimes zoom or twist the camera while the shutter is open, the zoom is also important, so one of the new medium primes with IS is also out. 

I want to go full frame, but I feel like without a 2.8 zoom in this range with IS, that matches the image quality of the 17-55, I will miss a ton of great shots I'm kind of known for.  Any advice here?

Here are some sample images with the combo I had before:











I'm trying to wrap my head around if increasing ISO (compared to what was useable on the 7d) with the 5D iii or 6D will offset the loss of speed from the lens if I go with say, the 24-105L.  My gut says, yes...and no.

30
Software & Accessories / Re: Stolen Camera Finder?
« on: February 17, 2013, 02:25:56 PM »
I tried this.  It only works if they post the images with exif in tact on a few particular sites, like flickr.  It doesn't scour the internet.  My gear was all stolen a year ago, and I've heard nothing after using a few of these services.  Unfortunately, they don't track lenses either.  Some of my lenses were worth more than my body, but the serial numbers don't get recorded in the exif unfortunately, and the services don't track them anyway.  It might be worth it, but it didn't help me.

Pages: 1 [2] 3