December 19, 2014, 01:27:00 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 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 44
316
Lenses / Re: Anyone upgraded from their 24-70L to 24-70L MKII?
« on: April 30, 2013, 11:03:27 AM »
Thanks for the insight folks.

I tried 3 copies of mrk I (2 new + 1 used), none of them could gave me the results I'm looking for.

YES...mrk II has better contrast and much sharper at f2.8. This is my most use lens. Follow by 70-200 f2.8 IS II and of course 50L when there almost no light.

Many posters ended up buying this lens after they posted similar questions ;)

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I still using 16-35 for lanscapes. I like the effects of 16mm. Most of my landscape shots I took are @ 16mm. I'm thinking 14mm prime though, since 16-35 is not quite sharp @ f2.8.

I mainly use 24-70 for indoor family & candid photos. This lens is pretty straight forward: sharp & fast AF.

How many Landscapes do you shoot at F2.8....

317
Lenses / Re: How about a new 28-135mm?
« on: April 30, 2013, 06:06:52 AM »
Optically the 24-105mm is better, especially at larger apertures. F4 throughout the Zoom range is much more useful than 3.5-5.6 especially at the long end. It quickly moves from 3.5-5.6 so you loose light and variable aperture lenses are just a pain. 24mm is much more of a big deal than 135mm on the longer end for me. Easier to have a 70-200mm which I always keep with me.

Also the 24-105mm is weather sealed and built like a brick in comparison. I never saw the value in the 28-135mm it was rubbish on crop because its like 38mm on the wide end and on FF the IQ isnt good enough. Value wise.. if your on a budget fair enough but its pointless adding a high quality body to a poor lens, better off buying a crop camera and a better lens.

As for upgrading it I would prefer Canon spent R&D time on an upgrade to the 24-105mm maybe to 24-135mm F4 L  that will sell like hot cakes. If they made a 2.8 version of that...  :o that would be the perfect walk around. But they would never do it.. as it will make 3-4 lenses irrelevant, so il keep dreaming.

In fact im surprised they are still making the 28-135mm.

318
Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: April 30, 2013, 04:33:06 AM »
Following a suggestion to check out this area of CR.  Very nice shots!

Thought I'd try my hand at photographing cars.  Just wondering what what be a good combination to photograph an outdoor classic car show coming up next weekend.  The widest lens I have for a crop-body is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and for FF: 24-105 f4.   There may be some open-house events where cars will be on display inside custom auto shops but this will be my first time attending this event, I'm not really sure.  If the event goes until say 8 pm in the evening, then the 17-55 might be the best way to go.

Suggestions and recommendations welcome   ;D

Well most of mine were taken with an old 40D and a 17-55mm, was so sharp on that body. Some taken with the 7D and 17-55mm and others taken with my 5DMKIII and a 24-105mm.

I think you have the bases covered. I would take a prime for low light large DOF, maybe a macro for details and if you get chance a 70-200mm F2.8 is nice to compress perspective with things around going on, then blur the background out to reduce distraction. But can be a pain if there are a lot of people around. I kept the 17-55mm when I shot crop and 24-105mm on FF. Ive been shooting cars for years commercially and neither have let me down. Now I keep the 24-105mm on my FF body and 70-200mm on the Crop body and carry two so I dont need to change lenses.

One last thing to take is a flash with a diffuser, just to fill. Can be very useful and if done correctly no-one would ever know.

You have to be careful. few tips - 17mm close up will distort the car, Better off using 35mm and above to keep distortion at bay. Although can look good, depends what your after.


BMW Z4M Coupe CSL Wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW E46 M3, Alston, Hartside, Cumbria, CSL wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

I would suggest get low, down to the cars hight don't shoot down. Otherwise the car wont look natural and its tell tale signs of amateurish photography. I am always lying on the floor or on one knee when I shoot cars.

Use a tele to compress the perspective bring the background closer.


BMW Z4M Coupe rear by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Look for details


Ferrari Wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Other than that enjoy! The meets and shows have an awesome atmosphere and great people. Talk to the owners, they are always willing to talk about the cars and give them a business card you might get some business.

Here are a few almost exclusively shot on the 17-55mm last year

Silverstone classics (40D)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157630780702712/

BMW Z4 Uk national meet (40D 17-55mm few with 10-22mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157630504600366/

Porsche museum Stuttgart (7D 17-55mm few with 10-22mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157632460914809/

Just a few of my car shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157629303945158/

Hope this helps.

319
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lens for upcoming Auto show
« on: April 29, 2013, 12:53:05 PM »
The 17-55mm is perfect for car photography used it for years myself.

320
Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?
« on: April 25, 2013, 06:49:10 PM »
I really like the 24-105mm it's a great all rounder.

I find the 24-70mm isn't as versatile because of the focal length, but obviously blows it out of the water for IQ. But you need £1000 extra for it!

You can't get a more versatile standard zoom than the 24-105mm for a walk around lens.

321
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d
« on: April 24, 2013, 04:16:53 PM »
It depends on your needs and wants. It's an expensive want but is it nessasrily a need?

True a 400D is an entry level camera and it is designed to work well in most conditions. Most cameras will struggle in an aquarium environment. Last time I was at an aquarium I was shooting at 6400-12800 F1.4-4 on full frame.  But your depth of field struggles on FF. Thats whats nice about APC you get more DOF, low DOF is great in portraiture but not in all other shooting. You have to step FF cameras down further to get the same DOF. Great yes we can now do that but again 6400 and 12800 on FF have similar complaints as 3200 on the 400D so really you might be frustrated with the DOF with a FF camera and you will be spending double the amount for a fairly niche amount of shooting.

Here is an example at F4 (24-105mm) on FF


IMG_0651 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

This is F2.8 (70-200mm) on APC shot at 1600 and cropped.


Snake by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The DOF is not that different. As F2.8 is roughly F4.5 on APC.

I firmly believe FF is not for everyone and APC is great. The cost outlay for the camera and glass to go with FF is expensive and people seem to have this "if I don't have full frame I can't shoot in low light" and FF is a must! But it's not, it's just the next best thing.

The 5DMKIII is my first full frame camera, main reason I bought it was I make a living with it, print big and the agencies and clients want the best IQ. So the cost outlay isn't really an issue as it makes it's money pretty quickly in a few jobs.

Would I go back to APC now I have full frame? No not with current offerings. Why? Im very happy with every quality of the 5D it's fast, light, small, reliable, IQ kicks ass, print big, feels like it would survive an earthquake and it shoots very well under low light. So I answered most of your want with that answer. But upgrading to FF costs a lot add 50% to a 6D for the 5DMKIII and if I wasn't reliant and printing A3 or less APC kicks ass, you get deeper DOF lenses are longer, 70-200 is a 110-320mm add a 2x extender 220-640mm!!! It costs a lot to get 600mm on FF. Current EFS lenses are as good as the FF counterparts 17-55mm and 10-22mm were 2 of my favs. In fact the 10-22mm is hard to replace 17-40 is soft and the 16-35 not much different. The main thing I miss on FF is the reach of my 70-200mm it's doesn't feel as useful.

I loved my 40Ds and I kept one as a back up. Reason I sold the 7D was because I felt it wasn't a big enough upgrade, the difference IQ wise wasnt the leap I needed for my work. The two side by side IQ wise there wasn't a great difference apart from you could shoot to 12800 it's not great but you can if you needed to, but high ISO was much better than my 40D and gave way to a lot of opportunity I couldn't before. But at 100-400 it seemed noisier than it should, but the image output was twice the size so you can print big!

I found 3200 ok 6400 useable after a lot of PP, which meant more time at the computer.

But the camera a huge huge leap, screen res, features, AF incredible! In fact I have no idea how I used 9 points for so long. It's the king of APC and I would have kept it but wanted to put the money back into the 5D and I kept a 40D a very good backup and didn't need 3 cameras.

Heres a couple with the 7D, 1000 is pretty clean. I dont have any high ISO 7D stuff at hand.


IMG_8341 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


IMG_8284 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Porsche Museum, Porscheplatz, Stuttgart by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

With the 5D I find 6400 good, 12800 useable after a lot of PP. So it does give you leeway and you get shots you wouldn't believe. 6400 I find about the same as 1600 on the 7D.

I made this as a test at 12800 at 2.8 with the 100mm L macro, they are very clean


BMW F30 3 Series interior by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, light console by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, centre console climate control by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

You can make incredible shots with any DSLR if you know how to get the best out of it. My fav shot taken with my 40D 17-55mm and a rig.


BMW Z4M Coupe by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

What I would do is learn more about PP and shoot RAW exclusively and wait for the new announcements, if they arent to your liking a 650D, 60D or 7D is where I would be aiming. Awesome cameras, yes older but you should be able to get them for a good price. The 7D will solve your AF problems and the 650D has all cross type. But all can be used at 6400 ISO with good PP.

Hope this helps.

322
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d
« on: April 24, 2013, 12:39:06 PM »
Sorry I disagree. These were taken at 1600 on my 40D


Ferrari Wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Aston Martin Badge by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

If you can edit properly noise can be made minimal even on old cameras.

These were taken on a 50mm 1.8 basic lens.

You shouldn't have problems with the camera not locking n unless it was pitch black and even you cant see.

323
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d
« on: April 24, 2013, 10:09:54 AM »
It depends, if you want to shoot. In low light you need fast glass and relatively good ISO, 3200 is usable on the 7D, 6400 is pushing it. But depends what you want, if you were printing at A3 fair enough but at A4 the 400D should be good enough to make ok prints at that size at 1600.

I used two 40D for magazine/newspapers for 5 years. Had no issues at all, you just have to know what you are doing post process in regards to noise reduction.

If you buy a F2.8 lens for a crop camera it has a relative F4.5 DOF because of the field of view compared to FF. For me moving from a 7d with 17-55mm F2.8 to a 5DMKIII and a 24-105mm F4 I see barely any difference in the DOF because of the above. But with my 70-200mm F2.8 the DOF at 2.8 is so fine, its a huge difference and you have to be very careful making sure you nail the focus or your pics will be disappointing.

Whereas if you continue using the 28-135mm on a FF camera you will find DOF is thiner and its sooo much wider. Although I wouldn't advice using that lens as the sensor of the 6D need better glass to resolve. Which is where you get problems, you need expensive glass to resolve the better FF sensors, costs start to spiral.

The 7D has better AF than all the cameras you have outlined. The only advantage the 6D has is that it has one cross type -3EV sensitive AF point. But as its the only cross point its difficult to compose with fast glass as you get focus shift if you focus and re-compose.

The 7D can output A3 and bigger prints natively and for amateur use it has more than enough low light performance. The tech has moved a long way from the Digic 3 era the 7D is an impressive camera. The images are nearly twice the size of your 400D so when you scale them down to A4 the prints will look good.

I had one but sold it because not because of its low light performance it was a huge upgrade from my 40Ds but it was the base ISO like 100-400 I found annoying. The expectation from publishers is high so I swapped it for a 5DMKIII as it is like a FF 40D and the AF system is incredible. But the 7D is pretty much a perfect camera. It may not have the best low light capabilities on the market but it is a great package. But quite a big camera.

Going FF is not necessary for everyone, it is expensive and can be a hard learning curve for many.

But the 650D has a lower score sensor wise than the 600D but they are pretty much identical in IQ/noise performance.

I would wait and see what the 70D offers.

Half of your problem is that you shoot JPEG. Shoot RAW on your 400D it will completely revitalise the camera. JPGs if not shot perfectly are very difficult to edit in comparison to RAW. Especially in Noise reduction, the JPGs are compressed and they dont hold as much info. Editing is much easier with a Raw workflow.

TBH im not sure the camera is really the area that needs improving. Do some reading on PP and Raw and this will improve your images. Throwing money at kit isnt always the answer.

324
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d
« on: April 24, 2013, 08:04:07 AM »
You have to remember with the 28-135mm that on APC it is 44mm at its widest! Which means you have nothing close to wide angle on your current system.

The 400D was in the same class as the 40D with a little noise reduction 1600 is useable. Depends what your using the camera for. Do you print? How big? or do you use post mostly on the internet? If the latter 1600 on the 400D is perfectly useable for screen.

If you were to buy a 6D you could use your 28-135mm and be fairly happy. Although the 24-105 is better and a perfect partner for the 6D.

IMO if I was you I would buy a 7D, sell the 28-135mm because it makes no sense at all using it on a crop camera. Buy a 17-40mm L or a 17-55mm and a wide angle like the 10-22mm then you will be completely sorted for a similar price.


325
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D MK3 or 6D Replacements... when?
« on: April 05, 2013, 07:04:38 AM »
The 7D is as good if not better for sports and birding for larger prints with the crop factor and pixel density apart from high ISO which you may need (400mm F5.6 or 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 are the easiest way to get into the long end but are fairly slow lenses ISO is a god send) to get the same field of view you need to crop and as previously said the density is more useful for large prints. If you buy the 6D and keep the 7D you will be pretty much set for a good compromise.

Its a good combo, and gives you a second camera as a backup. Thing is the 5DMKIII is a joy to use and is best of both worlds. I would take the 5DMKIII but it is slightly more expensive but really is very underrated cant say that enough.

326
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D MK3 or 6D Replacements... when?
« on: April 05, 2013, 05:51:06 AM »
I would say get the 5DMKIII I moved from the 40D & 7D, the leap is huge.

Its a shame the 5DMKIII got such a bad reception when it was announced just because of price. I was blown away with it when it was announced, I couldn't have told Canon to create a more perfect camera for me. Its basically a full frame 40D with awesome IQ and noise performance with the best AF system Canon has to offer!

Dont be scare-mongered into believing that Canon cameras cant keep up. The banding and shadow issues are a non issue for 90% of shooting and if you know how to use a camera you wont run into these problems. It is more useful when you make a mess of an image and it needs some ridiculous recovery. Low light performance and noise is very very similar in real world application, 11.7EV is nothing to be sniffed at its more than enough range, 22mp is enough to create extremely detailed prints natively at A2 with no upscaling. The amount of people printing at A2 regularly I would say is quite small outside the professional realm.

In the 4 months I have been shooting with the 5DMKIII I have never come across the issue claimed by many, possibly because I expose my pictures properly. 6400ISO is a joy to use, its like 1000ISO on the 7D, a lifesaver. I shot these at 12800ISO recently as a test and they look fantastic, no banding very little noise and with minimal processing or effort.


BMW F30 3 Series interior by tom_scott88, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, light console by tom_scott88, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, centre console climate control by tom_scott88, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, multifunction steering wheel by tom_scott88, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, iDrive screen by tom_scott88, on Flickr

This is my thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13209.0

Couple of good articles recently on the forum that are worth looking at

http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2012/04/dynamic-range-canon-dslrs-and-shadow-noise-dealing-with-it/

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

The 5DMKIII is IMO one of the best cameras ever made for professionals. The IQ is stunning, its incredibly sharp, fantastic features, and the addition of the EF line up, there isnt really anything else I would want in the 5DMKIII. They have sold like hotcakes and most pros I know own them or want one. I dont know anyone who has switched to Nikon because of it mostly amateurs who dont use their cameras commercially.

But the D800 is a fantastic camera and it is cheaper but the files are just ridiculously large, you would not only have to invest in a new camera and lens system you would have to invest in a high end machine to edit them! Without even thinking about storage. If landscape is your thing I would say ye go for it the D800 is made for it, but the 5DMKIII is the best all round FF camera on the market and as the thread above suggests the sharpness is very close between them and much easier to get across the board with the Canon lenses.

But the D800 is slow for most other application and the file sizes are excessive for use and would need to be downsized in most cases. Fantastic for cropping, but where is the skill theres no point in composing lol! But if the best is all that will do then its a great camera but its not without its problems too. The IQ of a camera is important but the features and use of it are of equal importance, which is where the 5D is better IMO.

The 6D I wasn't sold on, the cameras performance is fantastic on par with the 5DMKIII in some cases better but if you are using primes wide open with only one cross point right in the middle focusing and recomposing will lead to focus shift. Would have been another perfect camera for a lot of people if they had put the 7D AF in it, in fact I would have bought one to go with my 5DMKIII instead I will get a second 5D.

I think coming from the 7D you will be blown away. I was pretty disappointed with the 7D not for its features or even high ISO performance but its IQ where it counts at 100-400 where I shoot primarily. The 5D is so clean here its amazing. You can play a waiting game for as long as you want but I don't see another 5D for 18-24 months. If you are really worried about DR then just bracket, then you will realise you don't need to.

Hope this helps :)

329
Portrait / Re: First paid photo shoot - DATE: 23 March 2013
« on: April 03, 2013, 09:21:12 AM »
Good job! Maybe slightly saturated but good first shoot  :)

330
The Canon 70-300mm L is not compatible with the Canon extenders, but is with the kenco.

TBH the IQ difference wont be day and night between the two in good light and low ISO.

But what will be very visible is the noise difference at higher ISO. The 40D is only just usable at 1600, 3200 forget it. So with the stops you will loose you will need to increase the ISO to compensate there the 5DMKIII will have an advantage.

TBH if you want more reach the best alternatives are the 400 F5.6 or the 100-400mm IS in the sensible bracket.

But you will get 480mm out of the 40D without the teleconverter. 672mm with a 1.4 extender.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 44