Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Need help on settings for action photos with 5D Mark II

« on: May 10, 2013, 03:43:06 AM »

Just my thoughts after shooting a bunch of different sports genres lately and for the type of shot you're going for.
Don't have her running straight at the sun, it'll make her squint most likely. A slight angle better, also creates more interesting shadows.
Action stopping when running requires 1/250th shutter speed, 1/320 or faster preferrably.
For some cool effects have a panning head on your tripod and pan along as she runs with focus on her face. Face will be sharp and legs and moving arms blurred. 1/80th is good for that.
One that I would really consider is having an off-camera flash to freeze the movement and get some nice fill light. High Speed Sync is good for that.
Pre-focusing might be a good idea.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Color Bombs Kill Cameras

« on: May 10, 2013, 03:37:02 AM »

Looks like a very photographic event, but I found one of the videos on their site a little disturbing. One of the "officials" was wearing a face mask across his mouth and nose when throwing out the color powder, but the runners were all breathing that stuff.
Sounds like a recipe for problems, which then is demonstrated through the possible equipment damage. Gadgets can be replaced, lungs and other vital organs are a little harder to come by.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: First photo pass to a concert! Lessons learned...

« on: May 10, 2013, 03:25:36 AM »

Awesome post. Thank you! Brilliant advice.
I don't get the "miss" on the drum shot. I think it looks good. 

4

Lighting / Re: Speedlite Remote Trigger Question

« on: April 30, 2013, 01:27:11 AM »

I use the YN-622C with my 430EX II and Nissin Di866 MkII and I am able to change any and all settings that the camera normally offers as well. Can even use 2nd curtain and High-Speed Sync over the radio. Good stuff for the price, albeit a little clunky them transceivers.

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Wedding expert suggestions desired...first time.

« on: April 29, 2013, 05:29:07 AM »

Get that flash OFF the camera. Stick it on a monopod with the YN-622C trigger and you can get a lot more creative with the flash bit and even ask someone else to hold the flash for you everynow and then.

Take the time to get the couple out of the hustle and bustle for maybe 30minutes and get the "base" shots..
This will help:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wedding-Photography-A-Guide-Posing/dp/0956546307/

6

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: April 22, 2013, 02:48:30 AM »

Reading these last few posts reminds me of how surprised I am that my 135/2 isn't larger, especially compared with my 200/2.8

135 / 2.0 = 67.5
200 / 2.8 = 71.4

Only 4mm different...

Yes now you mention it I can see that based on the same maths the 200/2 and the 300/2.8 are similar diameter.

But if the formula is as simple as focal length / f stop, why does my 135/2 vignette much more at f2 than my 200/2.8 does at 2.8 ?

The simple formula is just that.. simple and a guideline. A lot more goes on in the world that is precision optics that can produce(or not) the vignetting you're experiencing.

Just to be specific, the relative aperture as a ratio couldn't be called a "guideline". It is a mathematical fact. The "entrance pupil" diameter, which is the diameter of the aperture as viewed through the front of the lens at "infinity distance", quite literally IS the focal length divided by the relative aperture number. There is no guideline here, that is quite specifically EXACTLY how to compute the size of the entrance pupil, which puts a limit on the minimum size the front element can possibly be. If the front element were smaller than that, then the entrance pupil would have to be smaller as well.

Sometimes manufacturers "fudge" the design a little. For example, the 100-400mm L lens is actually more like 390mm, and the entrance pupil and the diameter of the front element are just a little smaller than would actually be necessary for a lens that was truly 400mm long (I've actually measured it myself.) For a ~390mm focal length, the numbers add up and seem to be correct, probably because it was a matter of manufacturability vs. cost to shorten the lens just a little. Not that it matters much, a few mm difference in focal length aren't going to matter (less than 5% difference in subject size relative to the frame), but it could mean quite a bit from a cost standpoint.

The size of the front element of a lens cannot be smaller than the entrance pupil, however it can be larger. I guess you could say it is a "guideline" that the front element has to be at least as large as the entrance pupil. Wide angle lenses tend to have front elements that are significantly larger than their entrance pupils, less so because of the needed light gathering power and more so just so they can gather incident light from an appropriately wide angle. In my 16-35mm f/2.8 L lens, for example, the front element is HUGE, while the aperture is quite tiny in comparison. I'd say the front element is dozens of times larger in area than the entrance pupil, maybe a dozen times larger in diameter.

I know the f-stop and focal length formula is definite. What I was referring to is the magic that happens beyond that. Compensating for CA, flare, coatings, lens material they all contribute to the final resulting light that eventually ends up saturating the sensor behind the lens. And yes, like you say, some lenses are using a lot larger front elements that would, based on the maths alone, be overkill.

I enjoy this thread. Excellent stuff in here and good discussion. Have a great week all of you! 

7

EOS Bodies / Re: How can lens focus ever be "off" in a way that AFMA fixes it?

« on: April 19, 2013, 05:30:02 AM »

AFMA to my knowledge doesn't change anything in the lens, but rather tells the camera how to shift the sensor so the focal plane is aligned to different lenses. That's why you need to do it for different lenses.
Make sense?

Interesting ... so the chip in the lens does not make any adjustments to the lens, other than read command(s) off the sensor?

To my knowledge that's correct. The corrections are done in the camera body and not the lens. Auto-Focus Micro Adjustment would seem to be making sure the autofocus bits of the sensor are calibrated and not calibrating the lens. Mind you, this is just a possible scenario from a geek perspective how it would be the easiest way to implement AFMA in many camera bodies.

8

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: April 19, 2013, 05:27:22 AM »

Reading these last few posts reminds me of how surprised I am that my 135/2 isn't larger, especially compared with my 200/2.8

135 / 2.0 = 67.5
200 / 2.8 = 71.4

Only 4mm different...

Yes now you mention it I can see that based on the same maths the 200/2 and the 300/2.8 are similar diameter.

But if the formula is as simple as focal length / f stop, why does my 135/2 vignette much more at f2 than my 200/2.8 does at 2.8 ?

The simple formula is just that.. simple and a guideline. A lot more goes on in the world that is precision optics that can produce(or not) the vignetting you're experiencing.

9

Lenses / Re: 17-40 F4L or Wide Angle Prime?

« on: April 19, 2013, 05:25:10 AM »

It's an L-lens so weather sealing is present.

As pointed out... Better f-stop performance for primes but you have to zoom with your legs and not the lens.
I don't do video so can't say more than that.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: How can lens focus ever be "off" in a way that AFMA fixes it?

« on: April 19, 2013, 01:23:09 AM »

On my 7D, in the very beginning, I was wondering why some of my shots seemed to miss focus even if the camera told me it has locked on. It was best seen shooting wide open, f/2.8 or larger. Suddenly the image would be in focus slightly in front or slightly behind the subject depending on the lens. With apertures of 8 or smaller, not usually a problem as the depth of field was large enough.
I think, I do not know for sure, but AFMA corrected this because the focal plane of the sensor was slightly off with regards to where the lens was projecting the focus relative to the sensor.
Now I can shoot wide open at any aperture with the lenses I have and focus is where I tell it to be. AFMA to my knowledge doesn't change anything in the lens, but rather tells the camera how to shift the sensor so the focal plane is aligned to different lenses. That's why you need to do it for different lenses.
Make sense?

11

Technical Support / Re: MacBook Pro : Best RAW Processing Software?

« on: April 17, 2013, 02:59:25 AM »

For minor work and cataloging I run Aperture on my MacBook Pro... Photoshop+ACR for more "intensive" work. In addition to these I got Nik Software's bundle at a steal of 126USD for the whole package.. Brilliant stuff that.

12

Canon General / Re: Why do you do Photography?

« on: April 16, 2013, 08:42:47 AM »

It started out as a trial, got my 7D for personal use and didn't think anything about it. Then I thought, I _have_ to learn this stuff as it would be embarrassing going around with a 7D on Full auto. So I got a few books and was hooked, things just sort of escalated from there and now it's earning some money as a side job.

I agree with previous posters, good stress relief and I enjoy it, plus, there's always some new thing I want to get out and try. A lot of inspiration comes from the likes of flickr et al. "Whoa! How'd they do that? I want to try it too." -sort of thing.

13

Software & Accessories / Re: Help me finalize my tripod & ballhead choice

« on: April 15, 2013, 07:42:11 AM »

I have the Manfrotto you're looking at. I am very happy with it. It had been through snow, rain, sand and high and low temps and works good. I paired it with Manfrottos 327 (or 324) RC, whichever's the sturdier one,  (joystick head) and it has served me well.

I am seriously considering to get a 3leggedthing.com carbon fiber one as well, but no pressing need at the moment. Lenses first.

RRS are very, very good, but very, very expensive... at least where I come from.

14

Site Information / Re: Love or Hate Canon Rumors Forum

« on: April 05, 2013, 06:49:22 AM »

I love it here. Found some great contacts. The ones that tend to be 'not-so-nice' I just ignore.
The advice and technical bits are awesome. The Nikon vs. Canon debate could go, it's the same as the age old Mac vs. PC... to each their own.
I'm going to be sticking around for some time to come.

15

Lighting / Re: Elinchroms and High Speed Sync

« on: March 27, 2013, 01:17:22 PM »

Actually, I just realized something based on the cool things said earlier. Let's see if I got it right.

You're saying that my shutter speed doesn't really matter as long as the flash is powerful enough for a short amount of time?

So 1/250th shutter speed + 1/4000th flash duration of suitable power would actually freeze most anything. Is that right?

If so, I got no problems with getting any of the Elinchrom gear