March 05, 2015, 11:11:55 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 - tomscott

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 45
Software & Accessories / Re: Inconspicuous Messenger Bag
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:27:37 AM »
The retrospective-7 looks like a great bag but who sells Think Tank products in the UK?

The Lowepro would be great if you could carry an iPad or 11" MBA like the retrospective-7.

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 11:35:20 AM »
The 5DMKIII does have more MP but has less density the chip is 1.6X bigger therefore pixels are more spread out. APC crams 18MP on a sensor that is 1.6X smaller therefore the 18MP APC chip has the largest pixel density of any Canon sensor meaning more pixels on target and a sharper image. That image sharpness depends on the ISO, 1600ISO is about as high as you would want to go. The density makes the sensor pretty noisy, which is the benefit of full frame.

Also if you use a 1.4 with the 70-300mm you will get a slower focusing high aperture lens so you will have to compensate with ISO on the 5D anyway. the 70-300mm with a 1.4 will be a 98-420mm F5.6-8 lens, which is pretty slow and the AF will be even slower.

With a 7D you get 112-480mm F4-5.6 lens with full speed AF and you could still put a 1.4 on it if you wanted making a 157-672mm F5.6-8 you also get 8fps rather than 6fps, and more depth of field on the subject.

An image cropped from a 5DMKIII and upscaled to 7D size will perform similarly. But the 5DMKIII needs more sharpening.

The fact is if your shooting in good light crop is better for wildlife if you want smaller, lighter and more length for your $ if you don't have the funds/don't want to carry the big whites.

Why not take the 16-35mm and the 24-105mm, the main reason for the 24-70mm F2.8 is the F2.8 will you need it? also has no IS, much heavier and much bigger (if your talking MKI). The 24-105 fills the gap has a better range and IMO is the best walk around lens maybe not the sharpest but its a very good lens. I would have two bodies with the tele you choose and the 24-105mm attached to the other.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2014, 10:36:52 AM »
Really exciting at this point anything is a bonus! I will be glad to see Canon innovating again!

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 09:50:15 AM »
That is true, but you do get more pixels on the target. With cropping you loose pixels, but with FF you get reduced noise and better DOF with crop you get more DOF longer range but with more pixels more noise and less light gathering. The 7D is good to 1600ISO tho but sometimes thats not enough.

A 7D with a 70-200mm F2.8 IS with 2x is effectively 224-640mm F5.6 IS.

There are loads of adv and dis and the forum is full of material it depends how you feel. Personally I think filling the frame is better than cropping but filling the frame with FF is difficult and filling the frame with wildlife is the dream but it doesn't happen which is why any advantage in focal length is a bonus. The latitude you get with crop is poor compared to FF once you go full frame you get spoiled as 3200ISO is pretty much equivalent to 800-1000ISO.

Crop is also cheaper and lighter, gives you the 1.6x thats why many use crop with 400mm F5.6 as the go to amateur wildlife combo.

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 08:04:29 AM »
Well thats it you say 400mm wasn't necessary but you were shooting effectively at 480mm which is 180mm more than 300mm on FF so more than 50% more than the lens produces natively.

So I would say 400 is a minimum with full frame.

If you'd had the 100-400mm you would have 640mm so that would have probably got you the cheetah.

Worth considering taking a 7D and a 5DMKIII crop can be useful as long as its under ISO1600.

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 06:30:33 AM »
Have you read the CR review of the 70-300mm on safari?

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 06:07:43 AM »
The other option is because your on FF you can crop?

400mm is still a good length. The tammy is still the best all rounder when it comes to all in one, the 70-300mm is a decent choice but I still think 400 is a minimum.

Problem with the 70-200mm is that removing the conv anywhere in the field will most probably create dust and do you want to lug that around for low light a fast prime makes more sense. 35mm F2s a good choice and is a nice length for landscapes.

The 100-400mm with a filter is still a good option especially if you already own it. I would take that.

But if you don't Tammy.

if the 16-35mm your missing 35-100 or 150. Instead I would take the 24-105 and a fast prime for low light, 24 will be wide enough for landscapes.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS
« on: June 19, 2014, 04:16:51 AM »
Have you tried setting your camera on auto ISO and then a minimum shutter speed on one of the C modes on you camera? So the camera will never go below a certain shutter speed.

Problem almost solved.

What camera do you use? as auto ISO may degrade IQ so worth setting a maximum ISO range that you are comfortable with I have my 5DMKIII set to 100-6400ISO because I feel that range is perfectly usable. Also what sorts of images do you shoot? Is it action? or general?

If general then F2.8 isn't overly helpful unless you really like the look, but is a pain to lug around if your always shooting F5.6-11 for decent depth of field. At the same time I don't mind lugging the weight.

Also if your shooting crop remember F2.8 is more like F4.5 so if you buy the F4 the image will look like a F6.3 (full frame equivalent) so it may be harder to isolate your subject. If on full frame there won't be an issue, F4 gives plenty of subject isolation especially at 200mm.

Do you follow the focal length shutter speed rule? 200mm above 1/200s? or even double it to ensure? As a wedding photographer I was struggling with my 70-200mm but only in low light at 1/30-1/50th and at 200mm its impossible to get clean shots. So for me the upgrade is worth it.

I have just gone from the 70-200mm F2.8 L non IS to the MKII, tbh the IQ is nearly identical but the IS is amazing but it is heavier. The other option is to go to the 70-200mm MKI IS can buy these pre owned for £1000 great choice although not as sharp as the original 70-200mm F2.8.

Another thing to bare in mind is that the IS makes shooting a better experience as the IS stabilises the view finder so at 200mm can be a lot easier to nail focus.

Hope that helps!

Lenses / Re: 35L vs 35/2 IS
« on: June 18, 2014, 05:11:33 PM »
Also been thinking about this, from what I gather the 35 F2 is a brilliant lens.

The 35mm L is about equal in sharpness but it creates those special images, similar to the 85mm.

The 35 F2 will produce 100 great images and the L will create 80% of those great images but you will get 10% unique gorgeous images.

Thats what I have gathered.

Lenses / Re: New 70-200mm MKII DUST!
« on: June 18, 2014, 05:08:21 PM »
Just a quick update, lens replacement arrived today and its perfect :)

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:14:29 AM »
I am also heading to Africa but in September.

Similar dilemma in what to take:


Canon 70-200mm F2.8 II with 2x tele conv
Canon 70-300mm as is but could take Kenko tele conv
Canon 100-400mm as is but could take tele conv
Canon 400mm 5.6
Tamron 150-600mm

The 70-200mm delivers great IQ at 400mm with 2x conv effectively making 400 5.6, very similar to the 100-400mm at 400mm (as it struggles at 400mm) but obviously slower AF. Rules that out.

70-300mm small, good range but 300 I don't think is long enough, you could add keno extenders but heard mixed results.

100-400mm great all rounder, IS, but don't like the pump design its a dust trap and its pretty old, 400 is pretty poor performer which I'm guessing is where most will be shot.

400mm F5.6 L Prime, best performer very sharp. From reviews much sharper than any of the above, smallish, light and fast AF. 400mm cropped to 600mm outperforms the 150-600mm at 600mm but neck and neck at 400mm. Downside, no IS, not as flexible as its a prime would need to take a 70-200mm to fill.

Tamron - best range beats anything by 200mm, has IS, very flexible but large and heavy. 600mm is more like 565mm in tests, but from 500-600mm suffers from fairly bad CA and is quite soft. But it outperforms the 100-400mm from 100-400mm 400 is sharper across the frame than the 100-400mm at 400mm but the 100-400mm is sharper in the centre.

So basically the tammy is better than any zoom canon has to offer at this length and as its £200 cheaper you get an extra 200mm you can use for free. As there is nothing to compare it to at this length in a zoom or price range its a compromise worth taking. The Tammy also holds its own vs the 400mm F5.6 at 400mm its only slightly shaper at F5.6

So in my mind its the Tammy vs the 400mm F5.6 not sure yet but leaning toward the Tammy.

At £950 the tammy is a bargain. Cheaper than all of the Canon offerings and holds its own to all of them.

The only concerns I have copy variation, haven't heard a lot about this yet, also build quality and weather sealing. Africa is a very harsh environment, I have been to the sahara and ruined my 17-85mm EF-s lens the zoom barrel was so full of grit and the lens full of dust and it never left the camera but obviously wasn't designed for such harsh environments.

Similar problems could be had with the 100-400mm with its dust pump, but the 400mm L, 70-200mm L and the 70-300mm L may fair better??

Im leaning on this as my kit to take.

40D Coupled with either 17-55mm 2.8 or 24-105mm F4
(my only crop camera, like the IQ and if I don't feel 600mm is enough on the 5DMKIII you get near enough 1000mm on APC with the tammy)

35mm F2 IS prime for low light and a nice length for landscape.
5DMKIII with Tamron 150-600mm

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Pet Portraits with 5D Mark III
« on: June 18, 2014, 05:17:01 AM »
The GF has a mini farm, heres a few of her dogs, goat and donkey

All 5DMKIII with 24-105 and all natural light

IMG_0651 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Pensive Pup by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

IMG_0656 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

IMG_0700 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Donkey in the snow, Skirwith, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Donkey in the snow, Skirwith, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Donkey in the snow, Skirwith, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Goat in the snow, Skirwith, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Animal Kingdom / Re: Animals at Night
« on: June 18, 2014, 04:07:07 AM »
Chester Zoo Twilight Zone, Vampire Bat

40D 70-200mm F2.8 L MKI 200mm (320mm) 1/30 3200ISO

Bat by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 : possible issue?
« on: June 17, 2014, 10:19:20 AM »
I have owned the 17-55mm for 4 years. The IS is pretty loud but the AF is perfect snaps on very quickly. Ive used it on a 350, 450, 40, 50 and 7D and had no issues.

The only issues I've had have been dust and the zoom ring is a little rough, probably from too much use over the years.

Where were you focusing? was it somewhere with good contrast not some dark indoor situation with no light?

Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: June 17, 2014, 04:20:07 AM »
Dug out one that was one of my first images 2006 Barton Fell, Ullswater Cumbria, UK
Barton Fell, Lake Ullswater, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Similar location a few weeks back on a miserable day

Barton Fell, Ullswater, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Aira Force, Ullswater, Cumbria

Aira Force Waterfall, Ullswater, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Aira Force Waterfall, Ullswater, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Aira Force Waterfall, Ullswater, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Aira Force Waterfall, Ullswater, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 45