April 17, 2014, 09:36:40 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 76
Lenses / Re: Lens and filter options for landscape photography
« on: October 16, 2012, 05:08:28 PM »
Could not agree more. At the risk of negating Neuro's excellent response, technically tonemapping is a function of HDR, while blending exposures utilizes a different approach. Both lend themselves to loosening up that dynamic range through the use of multiple exposures.

BTW, is it common to use tilt shifts for landscapes?

True...I just lumped them together practically, since the software packages that support it almost universally offer both options.

A TS-E is great for landscapes - the tilt capability allows you to achieve a very deep DoF without needing an exceptionally narrow aperture.

+1.  Sometimes I wish it had 2 shifts though  -- one to fix converging verticals and one for panos.

Lenses / Re: Next Lens
« on: October 16, 2012, 04:57:23 PM »
Really depends on how much you want to stay with your current two body system.  If you're willing to stay with two bodies, then you don't need to get any additional lenses.  Going (nearly) exclusively to FF will require more lenses to retain the focal length flexibility you currently have.  It's much cheaper to cover 10-22 and 17-55 in crop than it is 16-35 and 24-70 in FF.

I'd wait for the a sub 2900 body only deal if you can wait.  If you're happy with your copy of 24-70, keep it and get the 5DIII body only.

The following link has a good discussion on equivalence.  Full frame at f/4 will give a slightly shallower DOF than f/2.8 on the crop body.  Equivalence is one thing, but the advantage of FF is having more flexibility in trading ISO, DOF and shutter speed in combinations that would not be possible on a crop format.


I find IS more useful at longer FLs.  That is not to say that it's not useful for 24-105, but I find myself opting for a larger max aperture over IS most of the time.

Lenses / Re: New 600mm f/4L IS Mk II - availability?
« on: October 12, 2012, 11:49:16 PM »
Neuro, did you look at the TVC-24 as a travel rig?  It's 0.5 lb heavier and only 0.9 in longer than the TQC-14, but it has a higher load rating.  Not that own either, but I'm looking into the TVC-24 as a general purpose tripod.

I did, but it's not compact enough.  For me, a 'travel rig' needs to fit inside a carryon hard case (Storm im2500).  I have a Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 currently, and for that to fit I need to remove the ballhead - I'd need to do the same for the TVC-24 + BH-40 combo.  At some point, I might replace the Manfrotto setup with the RRS TQC-14 + BH-30 - the latter setup would fit in the Storm carryon without needing to remove the ballhead for travel.  That 0.9" makes all the difference!  ;)

The load rating on the TQC-14/BH-30 is sufficient for any lenses I'd likely use, short of the 600 II - the 15 lb rating is actually higher than my Manfrotto setup, and the latter does fine with a gripped body and white zoom (100-400, etc.).

Thanks for the food for thought!

Lenses / Re: New 600mm f/4L IS Mk II - availability?
« on: October 12, 2012, 01:17:24 PM »
[Unless you really need the extra height (the TVC-34L provides it, although the Gitzo GT3542LS doesn't), I'd go with a 3-section tripod over a 4-section tripod.  You want maximum stability for the 600mm lens (I have a Manfrotto 4-section CF tripod for travel with 'normal' lenses up to 100-400, although I may replace that with the RRS TQC-14 at some point, both fit in carryon luggage). 

Neuro, did you look at the TVC-24 as a travel rig?  It's 0.5 lb heavier and only 0.9 in longer than the TQC-14, but it has a higher load rating.  Not that own either, but I'm looking into the TVC-24 as a general purpose tripod.

Lenses / Re: Which Prime: 50L or 35L?
« on: October 12, 2012, 12:57:54 PM »
35L.  It's a nice focal length for environmental portraits (esp. at night) and for use indoors, where there is typically less space.  You can always crop the images a bit in post.  If I'm outside where space isn't an issue, I'm usually using longer lenses than the 35 or 50 anyway, especially for children who tend to move a lot.

Both 35 and 50 are sharp enough for portraits.  For use stopped down, your 24-70 II is going to be able to match the 35 and will be sharper than the 50, so the instances where you'd use a fast prime would be for shallow DOF or in low light, where corner sharpness is not an issue.

Lenses / Re: Which lenses?
« on: October 10, 2012, 06:35:35 AM »
300L IS + 70-200 f/4.  You could always add extenders for more reach. 

Lenses / Re: Upgrading and looking for lens advice.
« on: October 08, 2012, 11:22:43 PM »
If you have the funds to get the 5D III, 24-70 II and 16-35 II all at the same time, then go for it.  If not, then replace the 10-22 last.  It's a cost effective way to get UWA range.

Lenses / Re: 600mm Version I
« on: October 05, 2012, 04:38:14 PM »
check www.canonpricewatch.com  They maintain the last going prices on these lenses when stock dried up.


Lenses / Re: Angle of view calculations
« on: October 05, 2012, 02:00:46 PM »
If you go to the-digital-picture.com and select a lens review and then select the link for "Lens Specification", it will break down the diagonal, horizontal and vertical AOVs.

The AOV is dependent on sensor size, so a APS-C camera will have a smaller AOV.  But the easier way will be to do all your math using FF sizes to determine which FL you need, and then dividing that number by 1.6 at the end.  So for your example, your distance would be 30 yd = 90 ft.  The VAOV is approx = 2*atan(3/90) = 3.8 deg (where 3 is half of the height).  A 300mm lens is close at approximately 4 deg of VAOV (8 deg diagonal AOV), so a 300mm lens would work on FF.  For your crop, a 300/1.6 = 188, so a 200mm lens should be sufficient.  If you intend to shoot portrait more than landscape, then you would need a longer FL because the HAOV is larger than the VOAV due to the sensor size.

Now, if the action were at the 50 yd line, then the 70mm end of a 70-200 would be more helpful, so a 70-200 or a 70-300mm lens would both work well for sports.  If you choose a 70-200, then you can always add a TC later if you wanted more reach.

Lenses / Re: If you could only have 2 lenses for a wedding...
« on: October 05, 2012, 10:23:17 AM »
For a second shooter looking to try out a Canon system, use the stuff that you are interested in owning.  The 35L and 70-200L will be fine, but you might want to bring a flash for use during the reception anyway because the lighting can be really dim or you might be competing with sidelight/backlight if there is a wall of windows and the reception is during the day.

Also agree with se_photo on letting the primary photographer do her job.  Focus on the people that aren't working with the photographer at that moment.  While she is focusing on getting the list of family photos with the bride and groom, focus on the family/groups waiting their turn, esp. if there are young kids, who are good at getting people to let their guard down.  Focus on people sitting around you or those that you know.  You'll get more compelling pictures, and the bride and groom will thank you for it.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II or 70-200 II
« on: October 05, 2012, 08:47:55 AM »
70-200 first, especially if it's your first lens this in focal length range.  Most people already have a midrange zoom/prime, so the 24-70 is more often a smaller upgrade than the 70-200 is.  The 70-200 is great when kids are running outside and for sports (i.e. soccer), when the kids get older.  If you don't have one already, use a strap (i.e. BlackRapid)/harness system, which makes it much more comfortable to lug around.

The 24-70 looks to be an excellent lens but f/2.8 is sometimes not fast enough for indoor ambient photography, where faster primes are more useful.  Plus, you'd be paying an early-adoption premium for getting the 24-70 II now.

Lenses / Re: Canon Teleconverters Question
« on: October 03, 2012, 09:01:13 AM »
III + III does not stack, I just tried it.  The 1.4x III portion that you would put into the 2x III is too long.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from a canon30D
« on: October 01, 2012, 01:24:28 PM »
5DII.  It allows you to use the best glass as they were meant to be used (i.e. TS-E 17 and 24).  Gives you more control of depth of field and has less noise at equivalent ISOs.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 MK II or 70-200 MK II?
« on: September 30, 2012, 10:29:34 AM »
70-200 II first.  There are many high speed primes that compete with zooms in the 24-70mm range (24, 35, 50 and 85) that offer at least a 2 stop advantage over the f/2.8 zooms.  You might find that a mid focal length prime would complement your 24-105 better than the 24-70 II.

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 76